'^^'•iwViyOFAI-.i 



tilSTORY 







Class _£:i7l 
Book_.iC)L4r 
Copyright)^" . 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



A SURVEY 



American History 



SOURCE EXTRACTS 



BY 



HOWARD W. C^^LDWELL, A.M. 

PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN HISTORY IN THE 
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA 



YOLL^ME 1. 



Lincoln, JMebraska 
J. H. MILLER, Publisher 

1900' 



THE LIBRARY OF 
CONGRESS, 


Two Copies 


Received 


MAY 2 


1903 


Copyright Entr/ 
CUSS'^<> XXo. No. 

&0 n^ 


COPY 


|. 1 



COPYRIGHTED, 1900, 

BY 

J. H. MILLER. 



.X ^i 



o 



k 



CONTENTS. 

PAGE. 

Introduction v . 

The Founding of the Colonies 1 

The Development of Union A mono- the 

Colonies 25 

Causes of the American Revolution 47 

Steps in the Formation of the United States- 

Constitution 71 

Interpretation of the Constitution; Nation- 
ality .-. 99 

Slavery in the United States, 1 123 

Slavery in the United States, II 147 

The Civil War and Reconstruction 171 

A Study in American Foreign Relations and 

Diplomacy 195 

A Study in Economic History 219 



INTRODUCTION 

METHODS of teaching history are in proc- 
ess of transformation. With the 
chanj^e in method comes the demand 
for new books; so if anyone asks the reason 
for this little collection of sources on Ameri- 
can history, the answer is believed to be found 
in this change. The compiler is pleased to 
know that these studies have been received 
with favor by many progressive teachers. He 
feels that the lack of proper and available ma- 
terial is one reason that the "laboratory 
method " has not found more ready acceptance 
in the past by a larger number of teachers. 
In the belief that this collection will in part 
supply the demand, it is now sent forth to the 
school-world in this more permanent form. 

In many Normal schools and in some high 
schools brief reviews are demanded and given. 
In such cases it seems to the writer to be a 
waste of time to hurry through some text 
book, repeating the work that has been done 
in the grades, in perchance even a less efficient 
way. It is hoped and believed that the fol- 
lowing ten "studies " help to solve the problem 
of such reviews. A few suggestions are made 
in regard to the method of handling this ma- 
terial. A note-book should be in the hand of 
every pupil. It is desirable to have this made 
up of loose sheets of paper, perforated, so that 
they may be bound together, or removed and 
changed in place at the will of the pupil. A 
cover should be made or purchased in which 
to keep and preserve these sheets. 



VI. INTEODUCTION. 

The next and most important matter is to 
bring- the students into contact with the origi- 
nal material as often and as completely as possi- 
ble. For this purpose, of course the ''sources" 
must be accessible, and as far as possible in 
the hands of every pupil. It should be noted 
here again that it is not expected that the 
larger part even of the facts of history can be 
obtained from these sources, so a good narra- 
tive text must be at hand, and in constant use. 
The "sources" are to be used for the purpose 
of illustrating how the narrative history was 
formed; but more especially for the mental 
training which may be obtained from their use. 
The same document or illustrative extract 
should be in the hands of every member of the 
class that each may have the benefit of the 
criticism of all. 

With the material then in the hands of the 
class, the first question will be to determine as 
far as possible its value. To do th's necessitates 
that we find out whether the document is what it 
purports to be; then to determine whether we 
have a correct copy of it. Next Ave must find 
out Avho wrote it, and under wJiat circum- 
stances. Finally, the character of the author 
will come under discussion. Did he have the 
opportunity to know ? Was he able, honest, ed- 
ucated? Was he writing for partisan ends, or 
did he attempt to tell the exact truth? These 
are a few of the tests we must apply to our 
material, if we are to know its real value. 
Perhaps the most important question of all will 
be, did the writer know of his own personal 
knowledge, or did he gain his information 
from hearsay ? After we have determiped the 



INTKODUCTION Vll. 

value of our "source," we next proceed to 
analjzaJi, and to find out just what the writer 
meant. Here we must notice the use and 
meaning of words at the time the document 
was written, and no'.e any changes at the pres- 
ent tirne, so that we may get just the idea in- 
tended to be conveyed. A series of questions 
will often greatly help in this analysis. The 
ones given in the text are only intended to be 
suggestive, and so may be supplemented by 
others, or limited by omissions. 

The next step will be to classify and arrange 
our knowledge. In the writer's opinion this 
is the hardest, as well as the most important, 
part of the work. A logical arrangement 
must be insisted on. A careful outline must 
be prepared, containing a page reference to 
every point in the notes. It is only by this 
careful preparation that accuracy in thinking 
or in writing can ever be secured. When this 
work is completed, then the last step in the 
plan can be taken with great ease and facility, 
for then the whole mind and strength can be 
concentrated on the composition. The mem- 
ory under such circumstances is not burdened 
with carrying all the details. They are indi- 
cated in the outline and in the notes to which 
it refers. It goes without saying that every 
piece of student work when completed should 
be tested by comparing it with the be3t narra- 
tive texts, or with the teacher's knowledge. 

One final idea should be suggested. Each 
of these studies covers many years of time. 
The evolution of the topic has been kept 
in mind in making the extracts. In work- 
ing up the material then into papers and 



Viii. INTRODUCTION. 

reports, the teacher should see that the pupil 
has noted and understood the changes and the 
reasons therefor. For example, if the topic 
be the "Economic History" of the United 
States, great pains should be taken to call the 
attention to the changes in belief in regard to 
the tariff, or internal improvements. Let 
every effort be bent to discovering the causes 
of these changes. If Webster cease to be a 
free trader, the reason for the change should 
be found if possible. If the South oppose in- 
ternal improvements, let the cause be un- 
earthed. 

These studies, then, are committed to my 
fellow teachers in the hope that they may aid 
them a little in solving the difficult problem 
of how to get our children to understand their 
own history, and to get such :m understand- 
ing in such a way as to make them men- 
tally and morally stronger, that they may be 
better prepared to meet the exceedingly diffi- 
cult ques lions which will confront the coming 
generation. The writer has no extravagant 
ideas or expectations in regard to the trans- 
forming power of these studies. He simply 
hopes and believes that they will be found to 
be jin aid. 

H. W. C. 



THE FOUNDING OF THE CULONIES 



Virginia, 1607; New York, 1614, by Dutch; New 
Jersey, 1617, by Dutch; Plymouth, 1620; Massa- 
chusetts Bay, 1629; New Hampshire, 1623; 
Connecticut, 1634; New Haven, 1638; Maryland, 
1634; Rhode Island, 1636; Delaware, 1638, by 
Swedes; North Carolina, 1663; South Carolina, 
1663; Pennsylvania, 1681; Georgia, 1733. 
Dates for the first permanent settlements. 



AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES 

cM, N the following studies it is intended to 
'^ illustrate ten phases of American history 
"* by calling in contemporaries to speak for 
themselves. Of course these extracts are ex- 
pected to do little else than whet the appetite 
for more. It is hoped that the spirit of origi- 
nal research may be intensified in this way to 
such an extent that the reader may wish to go 
to the more extended compilations of sources. 
Professor Hart's new work, ''American His- 
tory as Told by Contemporaries," in four vol- 
umes, will meet the wants of many. Many ex- 
tracts may be found in this book which could 
not have been laid before its readers had not 
his comi)ilation been available. Niles' "Docu- 
ments Illustrative of the American Revolu- 
tion" is also a valuable and convenient collec- 
tion of sources bearing on the American 
Revolution. Professor Woodburn's revision 
of Johnston's "American Orations" has in- 
creased the usefulness of that valuable work. 
It now consists of four volumes of the best 
speeches on all political topics made by Ameri- 
can statesmen. The reader of these articles 
will thus recognize that they contain only an 
insignificant fraction of the available material, 
but it is hoped that these papers may throw 
light on a few of the many great questions in 
the development of the life and thought of the 
American people. May we not at least hope 
that those who cannot have access to the more 
elaborate works, or those whose time is too 



THE FOUNDING OP THE COLONIES. 3 

limited to use them, may find something to aid 
them in these briefer extracts? 

To get the greatest value from this work the 
writer believes that definite, systematic work 
is necessary. The questions are intended to 
direct the thought to the most imi)ortant 
points in tiie extracts, and to bring out the 
hidden meanings. The new reader may per- 
haps understand the method from a few ex- 
planator}^ sentences. In the first place, a writ- 
ten answer should be prepared for every 
question, accompanied by the page reference 
to the proof for the answer. Then an outline 
should be prepared arranging in proper and 
logical order the knowledge which has been 
accumulated in answering the questions. This 
second step is followed by the third, which 
consists in writing a }!ai)er following the "out- 
line" and based on the answers to the ques- 
tions for the ''material" or matter which it 
contains. In brief, we first gather our "ma- 
terial," then make an "outline," and finally 
write our ^'narrative history." It is believed 
that those who will conscientiously follow this 
plan will by the end of the year have gained 
much in power, in knowledge of method, and 
in general culture and information. 

More or less explanatory matter will be in- 
troduced into the extracts, but in all cases 
it will be inclosed in brackets [ ]. The editor 
will, however, in general leave the contempo- 
rary writers to tell their own story. 



CHAPTER I 

THE FOUNDING OF THE COLONIES 

HE planting of the colonies may be said 
in general to extend from 160U to 1700. 
By the latter date they were firmly es- 
tablished and the lines of their movement well 
determined. The social, religions, political, 
educational, and industrial life must all be 
considered in our study. Also the j^urposes 
of colonization and the character of the emi- 
grants, as well as the Indians, are factors in 
our study. Selections, therefore, have been 
made to illustrate each of these problems. 

The source material for this earlier period 
is very abundant, and much of it is now being 
made available in a comparatively cheap form. 
In this first number I have cut out the modify- 
ing clauses to a great extent, but it is believed 
that the substance of the articles has been in 
all cases left unimpaired. 

1. Reasons for colonization. 

Then shall her Majesties dominions be enlarged, her high- 
nesse ancient titles justly coiilii ined, all odious idlenesse from 
this our Realm utterly banished, divers decayed towns re- 
paired, and many poor and needy persons relieved, and 
estates of such as now live in w;int shall be'embet'red, the 
ignorant and barbarous idolaters taught to know Christ, the 
innocent defended from their bloodie tyrannicle neighbors, 
the diabolicale custome of sacrificing humane creatures abol- 
ished. . . . — J5S^. Sir Geo. Peckkam in Ualdvyt; 
Vo)/ages, etc. 



B'OTJNDING OF THE COLONIES 5 

. . . ayming at the glory of God, the propagation of the 
gospell of Christ, the conversion of the Indians, and the enlarg- 
Hi<;i. I of the King's Majesty's dominions in America. . • . 
—Hart, I, p. 190. 

2. The emigrants: Class, laws concerning. 

1582. — Sir Geo, Peckham proposed to get 
rid of 

a great number of men which do now live idely at home, and 
are bnrthnous, chargeable, and to the common annoy of the 
whole state. — Hakluyt. 

1637. — No persons being Subsidy Men [liable for taxes] or 
of the value of Subsidy Men shall emigrant. — Proclamation, 
Chas. I. 

You are to take . . . such a course . . .that 
vagrants and others who remain here noxious and unprofit- 
able, may be soe transplanted to the generall advantage of 
the publique as well as the particular commoditie of our 
Forraine Plantacons. — 16G0. Instructions for the Councill for 
Forraigne Plantacons. From Documents relating to New 
York History. 

And probably many vagrants agreed with 
Charles II., for, in 1679, two bright Dutch trav- 
elers tell us of a "Godless Emigrant Ship" 
bound for New York. 

In fine it was a Babel. I have never in my life heard of 
such a disorderly ship. It was confusion without end. I 
have never been in a ship where there was so much vermin, 
which was communicated to us. . . . There were some 
bunks and clothes as full as if they had been sown. Bui ^ 
must forbear. — Long Island Hist. Society, Memoirs. 

On the other side, hear Rev. Francis Higgin- 
Bon, 1629: 

The passage was through God's blessing . . , short 

and speedy — 6 weeks and 3 days, healthful to our passengers, 
being freed from the great contagion of the scurvie and other 
maledictions, which in other passages . . . tad taken 
away the lives of many ; and withal, a pious and Christian- 
like passage ; for I suppose passengers will seldom find a 
company of more religious, honest and kynd seamen than we 
had. We constantly served God morning and evening by 
reading and expounding a chapter, singing, and prayer. 
And the Sabbath was solemnly kept by adding . . • 



6 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

preaching twice and catechising. And in our great need we 
kept 2 solemn fasts . . Let all that love and use fast- 

ing and pra}'er take notice that it is as prevailable by sea as 
by land, whensoever it is faithfully performed. — Quoted in 
Hart, I, p. 194, from Thomas Hutchinson's Collections. 

3. The Indiana, 
Peckliam, 1582, says: 

All Savages . . . as soon as they shall begin hut a little 
to taste of civility will take marvellous delight in any garment, 
be it never so simple . . . and will take incredible pains 
for such a trifle. . . . Now to the end it may appear 
that this voyage is not undertaken altogether for the peculiar 
commodity of ourselves ... it shall fall out in proof 
that ... if in respect of all the commodities they can 
yeelde us . . . that they should but receive this only bene- 
fit of Christianity, they were more than fully recompenced. 
. . . Wee got for trifles neer 1100 Bever skinnes, 100 
Martins, and neer as many Ottus. — Captain J. Smith in '^A 
Description of New England.'^ 

Governor Winslow, 1621, says they were 
"very trusty, quick of apprehension, ripe-witted, 
just." 

Penn, in 1683, testifies that 

he will deserve the name of wise who outwits them in any 
treaty about a thing they understand. . . . Do not 
abuse them, but let them have justice and you win them. — 
Quoted from Janney's Life of Penn. 

4. Mechanism of colonization. 

The colonization companies in England were 
certainly rare enthusiasts. It is amusing to 
notice in the proceedings of the Council for 
New England, 1622, the following item: 

It is agreed that ye Councell meet the Morrow ... at 
Sr. Ferd: Gorges Lodgings for conferring about yc forme of 
a patent betiveene 7 and 8 o'clock in ye morneing. 

The royal generosity of the kings in giving 
away continents is well illustrated by this ac- 
count of how the above company disposed of 
New England, 1623: 

There were presented to the Kings most excellent Mat'^ a 
Plot of all the Coasts and lands of New England devided 



FOUNDING OF THE COLONIES 7 

into twenty parts each part conteyning two shares, And^ 
twenty lotts conteyning the said double shares made up]) in 
little bales of waxe, And the names of twenty Pattentees by 
whom these lotts were to be drawne. — From Proceedings 
American Antiquarian Society. 

Having given the lands to the companies, 
these must settle them. The proposal of the 
proprietors of Carolina in 16G3 illustrates the 
method, and the expectations: 

' Wee will grante to every present Und^'taker for his oune head, 
100 acres of land, to him and his heires forever, to be held 
in free and common Soccage, & for every man Sarv* y* he 
fihall bringe or send thith^ yt is fitt to bare Armes, armed wth 
a good fierlocke Musket, performed boare, 12 bullets to y® 
pound, and wth 20 lb. of powder & 20 lb. of Bullets, 50 acres 
of \andi.—Hart, I, 297. 

The charters show the crude geographical 
ideas and the dangers inherent in promiscuous 
grants. In the instruction given by Charles 11., 
in 1660, to the first Council for Foreign Planta- 
tions we find the following unconscious esti- 
mate of this chaos: 

You shall informe yourselves hy the best wayes and meanes 
yon can of the state and condicon of all Forraigue Planta- 
cions, and by what comissions or authorities they are and 
have bene governed and disposed of; and are to procure 
. . . copies of all such comissions and graunts . . . 
that you may be the better able to understand judge and ad- 
minister. — Documents, New York. 

In 1621 the Virginia Company, of London, 
tells us how they sent over fifty young women 
to be given in marriage for "one hundred 
and fiftie pounds of the best leafe tobacco 
for each of them;" for, they add, "we have used 
extraordinary care and diligence in the choice 
of them, and have received none of whom we 
have not had good testimony of theire honest 
life and cariadge." 

In 1660 Charles II., in his instructions for the 
first Council for Foreign Plantations, has the 
following: ** 



O AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

You are to apply your selves to all prudential meanes for 
the reudering tiiose dominions usefull to England and Eng- 
land helpfull to them, and for the bringing the severall Col- 
onies and Plantacons, within themselves, into a mora certaine 
civill and uniforme of goveremt and for the better ordering 
and distributeing of publique justice among them. — Docu- 
ments, New York. 

5. Political life. 

James, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, 
Fraiice and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c., whereas Sir 
Thomas Gates . . . (and others) consisting of certain 
Knights, Gentlemen, Merchants, and other adventurerss, have 
been humble suitors unto us, that We would vouchsafe unto 
them our License, to make Habitation ... in that part 
of America commonly called Virginia, . . . situate 
. . . between four and thirty Degrees of Northerly Lati- 
tude . . . and five and forty Degrees of the same Lati- 
tude, . . . We, greatly commending, . . . their 
Desires . . . which may . . . hereafter tend to 
the Glory of his Divine Majesty, . . . and in time bring 
the Infidels and Savages ... to human civility, and to 
a settled and quiet government: Do, &c., agree. . . . — 
Poore, II, 1SS8. Charter, 1606. 

We . . . do . . . Give, Grant and Confirm to our 
trusty and well-beloved subjects, Robert, Earl of Salisbury, 
. . . Robert, Lord Viscount Lisle, ... Sir Humph- 
rey Weld, Lord Mayor of London, . . . George Piercy, 
Esq., Sir Edward Cecil, Knight, . . . Dr. Meadows, 
. . . Captain Pagnam . . . Geo. Bolls, Esq., Sher- 
iflF of London, Wm. Crashaw, Clerk, Batchelor of Divinity, 
. . . Thomas Harris, Gentleman, . . . Geo. Walker, 
Sadler, John Swinhow, stationer, Wm. Brown, shoemaker, 
Frances Binley, minister, Richard Shepherd, 
preacher, William Shirley, haberdasher, Wm. Gibbs, mer- 
chant, Thomas Gypes, cloth-maker, John Dike, fishmonger, 
. . . Christopher Vertue, vintner, . . . the Company 
of Goldsmiths, the Company of Brewers . . Robert 

Chening, yeoman, . . . that they shall be one Body or 
Commonalty perpetual "having that part of America called 
Virginia ..." [description follows, but it is too long 
to quote]. — Charter, 1609. Poore, Charters. 

1610. "Virginia. — Sir Thomas Gates draws 
the character of the first settlers. There was 



FOUNDING OI'' THE COLONIES 9 

k great shipwrack in the continent of Va. by the tempest of 
dissention : every man overvaluing his own worth, would be a 
Commander; every man underprising an others value, denied 
to be commanded. . . . The next fouutaine of woes was 
secure negligence, and improvidence, when every man sharked 
for his present bootie, but was altogether carlesse of succeeding 
penurie. . . . Unto idlenesse you may joyne treasons, 
wrought by those unhallowed creatures that forsooke the Col- 
ony. . . . Unto Treasons, you may joyne covetousnesse 
in the Mariners, who . . . partly imbezzled the provis- 
ions, partly prevented our trade with the Indians, making the 
matches in the night, and forestalling our market in the day. 
Cast up this reckoning together : want of government, store 
of idlenesse, their expectations frustrated by the traitors, their, 
market spoyled by the Mariners, our nets broken, the deere 
chased, our boats lost, our hogs killed, our trade with the In- 
dians forbidden, some of our men fled, some murthered, and 
most . . . weakened, and indanngered, famyne and 
sicknesse by all these meanes increased. — Hart, I, 206-208. 

1619. Virginia. — We have an official "Re- 
porte of the . . . General Assembly convened at 
James City, in Virginia, July 30, 1619, consist- 
ing of the Governor, the Counsell of Estates, 
and two Burgesses elected out of eache Incor- 
poration and Plantation, and being dissolved 
the 4th of August." 

The most convenient place we could finde to sitt in was the 
Qiiir of the Churche Where Sir George Yeardley, the Gov- 
ernor, being sitt down in his accustomed place, those of the 
Connsel of Estate sate nexte him on both handes, except 
oneiy the Secretary then appointed Speaker, who sate right 
before him, John Twine, Gierke of the General assembly, 
being placed next the Speaker, and Thomas Pierse, the Ser- 
geant, standing at the barre, to be ready for any Service the 
Assnml)lv should command him. But forasmuche as men's 
affaires doe little prosper where God's service is neglected . . 
a prayer was said. . . . Prayer being ended, to the iu- 
tcnte that as we had begun at God Almighty, so we might pro- 
ceed with awful and due respecte towards the Lieutenant, 
our most gratious and dread Soveraigne. . . . [The 
Assembly proceeded immediately to pass laws "Against Idle- 
ness, Gaming, durunkenes & excesse in apparell" within 
three days.] — Colonial Records of Virginia. 

2 



10 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

1620. Massachusetts. — Rev. John Robinson 
wrote his advice after the Pilgrim colonists, 
whom he could not accompany. 

Whereas you are to become a Body Politick . . . and 
are not furnished with Persons of special Eminency . . . 
to be chosen by you into Office of Government ; Let your 
Wisdome and Godliness appear not onely in choosing such 
Persons as do intirely love . . . the common Good; but 
also in yielding unto them all due Honour and Obedience in 
their lawful Administration, not beholding in them the Ordi- 
nariness of their Persons, but God's Ordinance for your 
Good ; . . . and this Duty you may the more willingly, 
and ought the more conscionably to perform, because you 
are ... to have them for your ordinai'y Governours 
which you yourselves shall make choice of for that Work. — 
Hazard, Collections. 

1620. — Mayflower Compact. 

This day, before we came to harbor, observing some not well 
affected to unity and concord ... it was thought good 
there should be an association and agreement ... to 
submit to such government and governors as we should by 
common consent agree to make and choose. . . . 

In ye name of God, Amen. We . . . the loyall sub- 
jects of our dread Soveraigne Lord King James . . . have- 
ing undertaken, for ye glorie of God, and advancemente of 
ye Christian faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voy- 
age to plan ye first colonie in ye Northene parts of Virginia. 
Doe by these presents . . . in ye presence of God, and 
one of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a 
civill body politick; for our better ordering, and preservation 
& furtherance of ye ends aforesaid ; and by vertue hearof to 
enacte, constitute and frame such just & equall lawes . . . 
as shall be thought most meete & convenient for ye general! 
good of ye colonie: unto which we promise all due submis- 
sion and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder 
subscribed our names at Cap-Codd ye 11 of November . . . 
Ano Dom. 1620. — Winthrop, History of Mass. 

1632. — Governor Winthrop tells us in his 
Journal that (2-17-163f) 

The governour and assistants called before them divers of 
Watertown. . , . The occasion was, for that a warrant 
being sent to Watertown for levying of £8 . . . the pas- 
tor and elder, etc., assembled the people and delivered their 



FOUNDING OF^ THE COLONIES 11 

opinions, that it was not safe to pay moneys after that sort, 
lor fear of bringing themselves and posterity into boniiage. . . 
After much debate, they acknowledged their fault. 
The ground of their error was, for that they took this govern- 
ment to be no other but as of a mayor and aldermen, who 
have not power to make laws or raise taxations without the 
people; but understanding that this government was rather 
in the nature of a parliament, and that no assistant could be 
chosen but by the freemen . . . and therefore at every 
general court . . . they had free liberty ... to de- 
clare their grievances . . . they were fully satisfied; and 
so their submission was accepted, and their offence par- 
doned." . . . 

1634. — The general court came to a deadlock. 

So when they could proceed no farther, the whole court 
agreed to keep a day of humiliation to seek the Lord, which 
accordingly was done, in all the congregations. [And then 
when they met again] although all were not satisfied . . . 
yet no man moved aught about it ; . . . [and thus Puri- 
tan theology ruled and softened Puritan politics]. — Win- 
throp's Journal. 

1635. 

At this court, one of the deputies was questioned for 
. . . affirming that the power of the governor was but 
ministerial, etc. He had also much opposed the magistrates, 
and slighted them, and used many weak arguments against 
the negative voice, as himself acknowledged upon record. 
He was adjudged by all the court to be disabled for three 
years from bearing any public office. — Winthrop, History. 

1637. — For an interesting case of political di- 
vision and party manipulation, see Hart, I, pp. 
378-9. 

1639, — Governor Winthrop gives us this very 
interesting view of theocratic government: 

When the people have chosen men to be their rulers, and 
to make their laws, and bound themselves by oath to submit 
thereto, now to combine together ... in a public peti- 
tion to have any order repealed, which is not repugnant to 
the law of God, savors of resisting an ordinance of God 
. . . amounts to a plain reproof of those whom God hath 
Bet over them, and putting dishonor upon them, against the 
tenor of the fifth commandment. — Winthrop, History. 



12 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

164G, — The I'resbjterians demanded a share 
in the government. 

We therefore desire that civill liberty and freedom be forth- 
with granted to all truely English, equall to the rest of their 
countrymen . . . and as all freeborne enjoy in our native 
country. . . . Further, that none of the English nation, 
who at this time are too forward to be gone, and very back- 
ward to come hither, be banished, unless they break the 
known lawes of England in so high a measure as to deserve 
so high a punishment , . . and we likewise desire that 
no greater punishments be inflicted upon offenders than are 
allowed and met by the laws of our native country. — Hutch- 
inson. 

1653. — In this year Massachusetts furnished 
the first American example of the nullification 
of a federal act — i. e., of the New England Con- 
federation. 

It can be noe lesse then a contradiction to aflfeirme the Su- 
preame power ; which wee take to bee the Generall Courts 
of every Jurisdiction Can bee commanded by others an ab- 
surditie in pollicye ; That an Intire gov'r'ment and Jurisdiction 
should prostitute itselfe to the comaund of Strangers ; a Scan- 
dall in Religion that a generall court of Christians should bee 
oblidged to acte and engage upon the faith of six Delligates 
against theire consience all which must be admitted. — Ply- 
mouth Records. 

1639. Connecticut. — "Fundamental Orders" 
made by "a Gen'all Cort at Harteford." 

This constitution consists of eleven articles, 
but the lack of space necessitates very brief 
quotations. 

. . . we . . . the Inhabitants and Residents of 
Windsor, Harteford and Wethersfield . . . doe . . . 
conjoyne our selves to be as one Publike State or Common- 
wealth . . to mayntayne . . . the liberty and 
purity of the gospell ... as also in our Civill Affaires 
to be guided and governed according to such Lawes, Rules, 
Orders and decrees as shall be made ... as followeth : 
(1.) It is ordered . . . that there shall be yerely two 
general] ^.ssemblies ; . . . the first shall be called the 
Courte of Elections [to choose officers]. . . . 

(5.) Also the other General Courte in September shall be 
for makeing of lawes. . . . 



FOUNDING OF TUB COLOMi;s 13 

(10.) It is Ordered . . that everv (Jenerall Court-j 

. shall consist ol the (Jovenior . .md 4 other 

Magistrats at lest, with the major p'te ot" the de|iuiyos of the 

several! Townes legally chosen. . — I'uore, Charters 

and Constitutions ; a/so Hart, I. 

New York had a reform party and movement 
in 1650, and their leaders have left us their 
ideas of reform and j^ood government. Coloni- 
zation 

was not begun properly ; for it was merely accidental, and 
was not intended. . . . Trade ... is more suited 
for slaves than freemen, in consequence of the restrictions 
upon it and the annoyances which accompany the exercise of 
the right of inspection . . . [For years, too, not] any 
thing large or small, — worth relating, was done, built or made, 
which concerned or belonged to the commonalty, the church 
excepted. — New York Historical Society, Collections. 

Care ought to be taken of the public property as well ec- 
clesiastical as civil. . . . There should be a public 
school, ... so that first of all in so wild a country, 
when there are many loose people, the youth be well taught 
and brought up, not only in reading and writing, but also in 
the knowledge and fear of the Lord. . . . There ought 
also to be an alms house, and an orphan asylum, and other 
similar institutions . . . the country must also be pro- 
vided with godly, honorable and intelligent rulers who are not 
very indigent, or indeed, are not very covetous. . . . — 
Documents relating to New York Colonial History. 

That none shall be admitted freemen or free Burgesses 
within our Town . . . but such Planters as are members 
of some or other of the Congregational Churches nor shall 
any but such be chosen to Magistracy or to Carry on anv part 
of Civil Judicature, or as deputies or assistants, to have power 
to Vote In establishing Laws, and making or Repealing them 
or to any Chief Military Trust or Office. Nor shall any But 
such Church Members have any Vote in any such elections ; 
Tho' all others admitted to be Planters have Right to their 
proper Inheritance, and do and shall enjoy all other Civil 
Liberties and Privileges. . . . — Records of the Town oj 
Newark, N. J. 

6. Characteristics of colonial life. 

Massachuse1;ts. — John Endicott wrote to 
Charles II. in 1661: 



14 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

Your Servants are true Men, Fearers of God and of the 
King, not given to change, zealous of Government and order, 
orthodox and peacable in Israel ; we are not seditious as to 
the Interest of Caesar, nor Schismaticks as to the matters of 
Religion ; We distinguish between Churches and their Im- 
purities, between a living Man, though not without Sickness 
or Infirmity, or no man ; Irregularities either in ourselves or 
others we desire to be amended. [A most excellent descrip- 
tion.] — Hazard, Historical Collections. 

Samuel Sewall, in 1f'l)2, euteis iii his diarv 
tlie ominous note that 

A Bill is sent in about calling a Fast and Convocation of 
Ministers that may be led in the right way as to the Witch- 
crafts. [And the next page we read about] 7 Balls of Fire 
that mov'd and mingled each with other. . . . — Diary of 
Sewell in Mass. Hist. Society Collections. 

In 1631 Winthrop's diary gives us this item: 

At this court ... a servant . . . being convict . . . 
of most foul, scandalous invectives against our churches and 
government, was censured to be whipped, lose his ears, and 
be banished the plantation, which was presently executed. 

Connecticut. — In the true Blue Laws of 1672 
we read: 

If any Man or Woman be a Witch . . . they shall be 
put to death. 

[And] forasmuch as the good education of Children is of 
singular behoof and benefit to any Colony, and whereas many 
Parents and Masters are too indulgent and negligent, . . . 
If any man have a stubborn or rebellious Son . . . sixteen 
years o/ ag'e, which will not obey . . . hisFathe'-or . . . 
Mother . . . then may his Father or Mother, being his 
natural Parents lay hold on him, and bring him to the Magis- 
trates assembled in Court, and notifie . . . that their Son 
is Stubborn and Rebellious, and will not obey their voice and 
chastisement, but lives in sundry notorious Crimes, such a Son 
shaJl be put to death 

No man shall exercise any Cruelty towards any Bruit Creat- 
ures which are usually kept for the use of man. . . . — 
Lcews of Connecticut. 

John Josselyn, in 1674, after enumerating a 
number of punitory laws, suuis up New Eng- 
landers; 



FOUNDING OF THE COLONIES 15 

Their great masters, as also some of their Merchants are 
damnable rich ; generally all of their judgment, inexplicably 
covetous and proud, they receive your gifts but as an homage 
or tribute due to their transcendency, which is a fault their 
Clergie are also guilty of, whose living is upon the bounty of 
their hearers. . . . The chiefest objects of discipline, Relig- 
i.jii, and luurality they want, some are of a Liiisie-woohle dis- 
position, of several professions in Religion, all like Ethiop- 
ians while in the Tent, only full of ludification and injurious 
dealing, and cruelty the extreamest of all vices. — Hart, I, 495. 

Virginia. — In 1622 Capt. Nathaniel Butler 
tells us how he' 

found the plantations generally seated upon meer salt marshes, 
full of infectuous boggs and muddy creeks and lakes. Their 
houses are generally the worst that ever I saw, the meanest 
cottages in England being every way equal (if not superior) 
with the most of the best. 

Tobacco only was the business, and for ought that I could 
hear every man madded upon that little thought or looked 
for anything else. — Virginia Historical Society, Collections. 

Governor Berkeley, in his ofiQcial report of 
1671, tells us, too, that of 

commodities of the growth of our country, we never had any 
but tobacco. Now for shipping we have admirable masts 
and very good oaks ; but for iron ore I dare not say there is 
sufficient to keep one iron mill going for seven years. — 
Berkeley'' s Report, Henning^s Statutes of Va. 

Rev. John Clayton, writing on Tobacco Cul- 
ture in 1686, tells us that in Virginia 

'tis only the barrenest Parts that they have cultivated, by till- 
ing and planting only the High-Lands, leaving the richer 
Vales unstirr'd, because they understand not anything of 
Draining. Therefore every three or four years they must be 
for clearing a new piece of ground out of Woods, which re- 
quires much Labour and Toil. , . Thus their Plantations 
run over vast Tracts of Ground, each ambitious or engrossing 
as much as they can, that they maybe sure to have enough to 
plant .' . . whereby the Country is thinly inhabited ; the 
Living solitary and unsociable ; Trading confused and dis- 
persed ; besides other Inconveniences. [And moreover] reso- 
lute they are and conceitedly bent to follow their old Practice 
and Custom, rather than to receive Directions from others, 
tho' plain, easi'e and advantageous. . . . — Forceps Tracts. 



16 AMEUICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

Maryland. 16GG. — Alsop's description. 

He that desires to see the real Platform of a quiet and 
sober Government extant, Superiority with a meek and yet 
commanding power sitting at the Helme, steering the actions 
of a State quietly, through the multitude and adversity of 
Opinionous waves that diversely meet, let him look on Mary- 
land . . the Miracle of this Age. — Hart, I, 268 

Maine. — John Josselyn, in 1675, tells us of the 
Maine group: 

The people . . . maybe divided into Magistrates, Hus- 
bandmen, or Planters, and fishermen; of the Magistrates some 
be Royalists, the rest perverse Spirits, the like are the planters 
and fishers. 

The planters have a custom of taking tobacco, sleeping at 
noon, sitting long at meals sometimes four times a day, and 
now and then drinking a dram of the bottle extraordinarily: 
the smoking of Tobacco, if moderately used refresheth the 
weary much, and so doth, sleep. . . . 

If a man . . . came where they are roystering and 
gulling in Wine with a dear felicity, he must be sociable and 
Roly-poly with them, taking off their liberal cups as freely, 
or else be gone, which is best for him. . . . — Josselyn, in 
Hart, I, 43G. 

7. Religion. 

The charters from 1584 on put religion as 
one of the chief motives of the crown in further- 
ing colonization. Nor was this wholly a spir- 
itual spirit with some, as the extract from 
Peckham given above shows a most keen ap- 
preciation of the commercial value of Chris- 
tianity. But at any rate we always find the 
crown zealous for conversion — 

it being the hon'r of our Crowne, [wrote Chas. II. to the 
Council in ICGO,] and of the Protestant Religion, that all 
persons in any of our Dominions should be taught the knowl- 
edge of God, and be made acquainted with the misteries of 
Salvation. 

William Bradford, in 1607, tells us how the 
English Puritans, 

seeing themselves thus molested and that ther was no hope 
of their continuance ther [in England] . . . resolved to 
goe into ye Low-countries, wher they heard was freedom of 
Religion for all men. 



FOUNDING OF THE COLONIES 17 

[And from their wauderiugs and travels it came that] by 
ulL■^o .^,( public. c troubls, ill so many eminente places, their 
cause became famous, and occasioned many to look into ye 
;;ame ; and their godly cariage and Christian behaviour was 
such as left a Jaep impression in the minds of many, A-nd 
though some few shrunk at these first conflicts, and sharp be- 
ginnings [as it was no marvell] yet many more came as with 
fresh courage, and greatly animated others. 

When they resolved to leave Holland for 
America, to the thousand fears and ill prophe- 
cies, 

it was answered that all great, and honorable actions, are 
accompanied with great difficulties ; and must be, both en- 
terprised, and overcome with answerable courages. It was 
granted ye dangers were great, but not desperate ; the diffi- 
culties were many, but not invincible. For though their were 
many of them likly yet they were not certaine. . . . Their 
condition was not ordinarie; their ends were good and honor- 
able ; their calling lawfull, and urgente ; and therfore they 
might expect ye blessing of God in their proceeding. .. . . — 
Bradford 's History of Mass. 

We foresee from the above what Rev. Peter 
Bulkeley, in 1651, expressed as that to which 
New England was called. 

There is no people but will strive to excell in some thing ; 
what can we excell in, if not in holinesse ? If we look to num- 
ber, we are the fewest ; If to strength, we are the weakest ; If 
to wealth and riches, we are the poorest of all the people of 
God through the whole world ; . . . and if we come 
short in grace and holinesse too, we are the most despicable 
people imder heaven f . . . strive we therefore herein 
to excell and suffer not this crown to be taken away from ua. 
. . —Hart, I, 452. 

Massachusetts — The Massachusetts Company, 
in 1629, wrote to their colonists regarding their 
ministers that 

because their Doctrine will hardly bee well esteemed whose 
persons are not reverenced, wee desire that both by your 
owne Example and by commanding all others to do the like, 
our Ministers may receive due Honor. — Am. Antiquarian 
Society Proceedings. 

Only eight years later Governor Winthrop, 
v/hen examining Anne Hutchinson, says to her: 



18 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

Your conscience you must keep or it must be kept for you 
— [a most comprehensive critique on Puritan theology]— 
Hutchison, History of Mass. Bay Colony. 

No time was lost in passing laws by which 
the church forced reverence from all. And 
things went on this way until, in 1660, Edward 
Burrough, an English Quaker, gained the king's 
ear for the miseries of the Massachusetts 
Quakers. One horrible example is enough: 

Two beaten with pitched ropes, the blows amounting to an 
hundred thirty-nine, by which one of them was brought near 
unto death, much of his body being beat like unto a jelly, and 
one of their own Doctors, a Member of their Church, who 
saw him said, ' It would be a Miracle if ever he recovered, he 
expecting the flesh should rot off the bones' ; who afterwards 
was banished upon pain of death. — Hart, I, 484- 

In 1659 Mary Dyer, a condemned Quakeress, 
wrote a justification to the General Court: 

Was ever the like Laws heard of among a People that pro- 
fess Christ carne in the flesh? And have such no other 
weapons but such Laws, to fight against Spiritual Wickedness 
withall, as you call it ? — Hai-t, I, 479. 

John Cotton, as sketched by John Norton in 
1652, illustrates perfectly the solid and attract- 
ive parts of the Puritan minister: 

He was a general Scholar, studious to know all things, the 
want whereof might in one of his profession be denominated 
ignorance. . . . He was a man of much Communion 
with God, and acquaintance with his own heart, observing 
the daily passages of his life. He had a deep sight into the 
Mystery of God's grace, and man's corruption, and large ap- 
prehensions of these things. ... He began the Sabbath 
at evening [on Saturday] ; therefore then performed Family- 
duty after supper, being larger than ordinary in Exposition, 
after which he Catechised his children and servants, and then 
returned into his Study. . . Upon his return from 

Meeting he returned again into his Study unto his 

private devotion : where (having a small repast carried him 
up for his dinner) he continued till the tolling of the bell. 
The publick service being over, he withdrew for a space to 
his prementioned Oratory for his sacred addresses unto God 
as in the forenoon ; then came down, repeated the sermon in 



FOUNDING OF THE COLONIES 19 

the family, prayed, after supper sang a Psalm, and towards 
bed-tnue betaking himself again to bis Study, be closed Uie 
day with prayer. ... In his Study he neither sat down 
unto, nor arose from his meditations without prayer: whilst 
his eye? were upon his book his expectation was from God. 
He had learned to study because he had learned to pray.— 
Hart, I, 337-38. 

Two entertaining Dutch travelers in New 
England in 1680 give us a very amusing, but 
rather caustic, account of religion in Boston. 
One of the ministers being sick, a day of fasting 
and prayer was observed. 

In the first place a minister made a prayer in the pulpit, of 
full two hours in length ; after which an old minister deliv- 
ered a sermon an hour long, and after that a prayer was made, 
and some verses sung out of the psalms. In the afternoon, 
three or four hours were consumed with nothing except 
prayers, three ministers relieving each other alternately ; when 
one was tired, another went up into the pulpit. There was 
no more devotion than in other churches, and even less than 
at New York ; no respect, no reverence ; in a word, nothing 
but the name of independents ; and that was all. 

The ministers seemed to be 

persons who seemed to possess zeal but no just knowledge of 
Christianity. The auditors were very worldly and inattentive. 
The best of the ministers ... is a very old man, named 
John Eliot. . . . 

They are all Independents in matters of religion, if it can 
be called religion ; many of them perhaps more for the pur- 
poses of enjoying the benefit of its privileges than for any re- 
gard to truth and godliness. . . . All their religion consists 
in observing Sunday, by not working or going into the taverns 
on that day ; but the houses are worse than the taverns. No 
stranger or traveler can therefore be entertained on a Sunday, 
which begins at sunset on Saturday, and continues until the 
same time on Sunday. At these two hours you see all their 
countenances change. Saturday evening the constable goes 
around into all the taverns of the city . . . stopping all 
noise and debauchery, which frequently causes him to stop 
his search, before his search causes the debauchery to stop. 
There is a penalty for cursing and swearing, such as they 
please to impose. . . Nevertheless, you discover little 

difference between this and other places. Drinking and 
fighting over there not less than elsewhere; and as to truth 



20 AMKUICAN nJSTORY STUDIES. 

and true godliness, you must not expect more of them than 
of others. — Loiij Island Ilist. Society, Memoirs. 

Alas, the children were not all they should 
be, either. Chief Justice Sewall tells us how 
for 

his playing at Prayer-time and eating when Return Thanks 
he whipped his boy Joseph "pretty smartly." [We do not 
wonder that even Puritan theology failed to repress hunger, 
but it is a shock to find that there was enough juvenility left 
to assert itself at such a critical moment.] 

Rev. Nathaniel Wood, in 1647, sums up best 
the Puritan view of toleration in its most viru- 
lent form. 

To tolerate more these indiflferents is not to deale indiffer- 
ently to God. The power of all Religion and Ordinances, lies 
in their purity : their purity is their simplicity ; then are 
mixtures pernicious. That state is wise, that will improve 
all paines and patience rather to compose, then tolerate dif- 
ferences in Religion. He that is willing to tolerate any religion, 
or discripant way of Religion, besides his own, unless it be in 
matters meerly indifferent, either doubts of his own, or is 
not sincere in it. He that is willing to tolerate any unsound 
Opinion, that his own may also be tolerated, though never 
so sound, will for a need hang God's Bible at the Devills 
girdle. Every toleration of false Religion, or Opinions hath 
as many errors and sins in it, as all the false Religions and 
Opinions it tolerats and one sound one more. That State 
that will give Liberty of Conscience in matters of Religion, 
must give Liberty of Conscience and Conversation in their 
Morall Laws, or else the Fiddle will be out of tune. . . . 
There is no rule given by God for any State to give an affirm- 
ative Toleration to any false Religion, or Opinion whatso- 
ever ; they must connive in some cases, but may not concede 
in any.— Hart, I, 394-95. 

Maryland. — It is a relief to turn from this to 
a colony where toleration was more worthily 
conceived of. In 1633 Lord Baltimore summed 
up his long instructions to the colonists with 
the injunction: 

In fine . . . bee very carefull to do justice ib every 
man w'th'out partiality [and the result was, as Alsop wrote 
in 1666, that] here the Roman Catholick and the Protestant 
Episcopal . . . concur in an unanimous parallel of 
friendship, and inseparable love infugled unto one another, 



FOUNDING OF THE COLONIES 21 

. . . The several Opinions and Sects . . . meet not 
together in mutinous contempts . . . but with a rever- 
end quietness obeys the legal commands of Authority. 

In 1649 the Maryland Assembly ruled that 
blaspheming, cursing, denial of or ''reproachfull 
speeches, words or language concerning" the 
Trinity should be punished with death and for-, 
feiture of goods. But in the same proclamation 
we read that 

noe person . . . professing to beleive in Jesus Christ, 
shall from henceforth bee any waies troubled, Molested or 
discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor 
in the free exercise thereof . . . nor any way compelled 
to the beleife or exercise of any other Religion against his or 
her consent, so as they be not unfaithfull to the Lord Pro- 
prietary, or molest or conspire against the civill governem'L 
. . . — Archives of Maryland, by Browne. 

y Virginia. — 

In Virginia the families . . . being seated . . , 
at such distances from each other, many of them are very 
remote from the House of God, though placed in the middest 
of them. Many Parishes as yet want both Churches and 
Gleabes, and I think not above a fifth part of them are sup- 
plyed with Ministers, where there are Ministers the people 
meet together Weekly, but once upon the Lord's day, and 
sometimes not at all, being hindered by . . . the length 
or tediousness of the way, through extremities of heat in 
Summer, frost and Snow in Winter, and tempestuous weather 
in both. . . . —Hart, I, 295. 

Rhode Island. — To be contrasted with Ward 
on toleration we have R. Williams, writing in 
1670. 

Forced worship stinks in God's nostrils. In these flames 
about religion . . there is no other prudent, christian 

way of preserving peace in the world but by permission of 
differing consciences. . . . — Mass. Hist. Society, Col- 
lections. 

And Governor Peleg Sandford, in his ofiicial 

report, in 1680, writes: 

We leave every Man to walke as God shall persuade their 
hartes, and doe actively and passively yield obedience to the 
Civill Magistrate and doe not actively disturb the Civill peaca 



22 amt:rican history studies. 

. . . and have liberty to frequent any meetings of worship 
for their better instruction and information. ... — 
Greene, History of Rhode Island. 

Connecticut. — Blue laws of 1672: 

If any person . . . Blaspheme the Name of God the 
Father, Son, or Holy Ghost ... or shall curse in like 
manner, he shall be put to death. 

New York. — Governor Thomas Dougan, of 
New York, in 1687, writes: 

Here bee not many of the Church of England ; few Roman 
Catholicks ; abundance of Quakers preachers men and Wo- 
men especially ; Singing Quakers, Ranting Quakers, Sabba- 
tarians ; Anti Sabbatarians ; some Anabaptists some Inde- 
pendents ; some Jews ; in short of aU sorts of opinions there 
are some, and the most part of none at aU. — Documentary 
History of New York. 

Before this, in 1679, Bankers and Slayter 
went to religious service in New York. 

As it is not strange in these countries to have men as min- 
isters who drink, we could imagine nothing else than that he 
had been drinking a little this morning. His text was. Corns 
unto me all ye, etc. , but he was so rough that even the roiingli- 
est and most godless of our sailors were astonished- 

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT. 

1. Name the reasons given for colonizing, 2. What cTass 
of emigrants came, judging from the text? 3, What cJianga 
between 1637 and 1660 in regard to allowing emigratioia) ? 4. 
What do the accounts in regard to ocean voyages show in re- 
gard to character of emigrants? 5.. What did the early voy- 
agers say regarding the Indians? 6. How did the king dis- 
pose of part of the land ? 7. How were settlers enticed to 
come to America? 8. How did the settlers in Virginia get 
wives? 9. What land was granted in the first charter, 1606? 
10. What classes were stockholders in the second charter, 
1609? _ 11. When did the first House of Burgesses of Vir- 
ginia sit? *12. What contest in regard to taxes between the 
people of Watertown and Massachusetts Bay? 13. What can 
you learn from the Mayflower compact? 14. Meaning of the 
punishment of a deputy for questioning the right of the gov- 
ernor to the "negative voice." 15. What did Winthrop be- 
lieve in regard to his power as governor? 16. What relig- 
ious denominations complained of their treatment? .17. 
When and what was the first popular constitution ? 18. Can 
you find any indications of a spirit of rebellion ? 19. Were 
the Puritans superstitious? 20. Were their laws harsh? 
their punishments? 21. Name the industries you find men- 



FOUNDING OF THE COLONIES 23 

doned. 22. Were they good farmers ? 23. Trace the jour- 
ney of the Pilgrims from England to Plymouth. 24. Were 
the Puritans tolerant? 25. What kind of a man was Rev. 
John Cotton ? 26. What does the testimony prove in regard 
to the morals of the colonists? 27. What peculiar attribute 
do you find in Maryland ? 28. What colony would you have 
preferred to live in ? why ? 

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS. 

a. How would you explain the intolerant spirit so often 
manifested? b. Point out institutions existing now that had 
their beginning in 17th century, c. Did the theory and the 
practice of the Puritan coincide ? d. Trace the development, 
of witchcraft. Do you find its basis in life depicted in above 
extracts? e. Name the lessons you may learn from this 



THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNION AMONG 
THE COLONIES 



New England Confederation, 1643— Massachu- 
setts, Connecticut, New Haven, and Plymouth 
members; ended 1684. Meeting of five colo- 
nies, 1690. Albany Congress, 1754. The Stamp 
Act Congress, 176.5. First Colonial Congress, 
1774; Second National Congress, 1775. Decla- 
ration of Independence, 1776. Articles of Con- 
federation, proposed, 1776; formulated, 1777; 
submitted to states, 1777; ratified by Maryland, 
the last state, 1781. 



CHAPTER II 

DEVELOPMENT OF UNION AMONG THE 
COLONIES 

I. 

;HE several colonies were planted at dif- 
ferent times, by different interests, and in 
some cases by different races. The geog- 
raphy of the country was such that there was 
very little communication and intercourse be- 
tween the various colonies for many years. The 
soil and climate also tended to produce diver- 
gent interests and civilizations. The intolerant 
religious spirit of the age lent itself also to the 
same tendency. On the whole, one sometimes 
wonders that the colonies came together as 
easily as they did in support of interests that 
were not always clearly in common. 

It is very difficult frequently to find an ex- 
tract that is sufficiently condensed and pointed, 
which may be cited, to bring out some force that 
tended to prevent union or was, on the other 
hand, aiding it. Especially have I found it dif- 
ficult to get quotable extracts on the effects ol 
geography. In general it is by inference only 
that one gathers his conclusions. In the ex- 
tracts given it has in general seemed best to 
give those that brought out the salient move- 
ments looking toward union, rather than to give 
those that emphasized the divergent tendencies 
of the time. I wish to emphasize the fact that 
the study of sources means that every word and 
phrase is to receive careful consideration. The 
value of the training consists to a considerable 



t)EVELOPMENT OP UNION AMONG COLONIES. *2t 

extent in acquiring the ability to read between 
the lines, to draw inferences, to find the spirit 
or motive which prompted to word or act. 

It is hoped that the extracts quoted this 
month may illustrate not only the fact that vari- 
ous attempts to unite were made, but also drive 
home the character of the union possible, and 
the kind of union which the colonies sought and 
which the mother country attempted to force 
on them. It will be an interesting exercise to 
trace the expansion of the idea of union and to 
classify the factors which were at work; also to 
follow the changes in the nature of the union 
which were outlined in the various proposals 
from 1643 to 1776. Less weight has been given 
to the congresses of 1765 and 1774 than might 
seem necessary from their prominence. The 
reason for this is that the union movement then 
was rather unconscious, an accessory to the 
more palpable thoughts, — first that of a redress 
of grievances, and later that of independence. 
The Causes of the Revolution, which will be our 
subject for next month, will give us the oppor- 
tunity to study this period as it deserves. 

The following extracts are taken largely 
from the colonial records as reprinted by the 
various states. Massachusetts began this work 
as early as 1792 and has developed it till now 
her various historical publications are num- 
bered almost by the hundreds. New York 
has also reprinted, or printed from manuscript, 
thousands of pages of letters, laws, reports, and 
other documents. The same is true of Connec- 
ticut and other states. It is from these docu- 
ments that we can draw and yet scarcely make 
an impression in the limited space at our com- 
mand. 

I wish to thank the many who write words of 
encouragement concerning the work which we 
are attempting to outline. Certainly the idea 



28 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

that history may be studied in part from the 
sources in our graded schools is spreading. , In 
some cases it is well done, as I know by receipt 
of the results in the form of papers. I desire to 
call the attention of teachers elsewhere to the 
plan of the West Superior, Wis., schools, where 
the papers are printed in a neat little volume, 
100 copies printed, costing less than |16. 'The 
local paper published each student paper as it 
was completed, then put them together at a 
mere' 'nominal cost. I doubt not that every 
town has some local paper that would do like- 
wise. Principal Griffin has evidently found an 
added incentive to good work, and even to real 
contributions to local history in some cases. 

But I wish also to say that some criticisms 
come to me. One teacher suggests that the 
spelling of her pupils is not improved by work- 
ing over the old manuscripts. Shall the spell- 
ing be modernized, or shall we have the old 
flavor of our forefathers, trusting to some de- 
vice to avoid the evil, if such it be, of which 
mention has been made? Will not the teachers 
discuss this question pro and con in letters to 
me? Perhaps a more serious danger is sug- 
gested by another who says: How do we know 
that Mr. Caldwell can or does make extracts in 
such a way as to give a true picture of the 
times? How do we know that the writers he 
cites are representative, are good witnesses? 
Well, the mere fact that such questions can be 
asked shows that in part, at least, our work is 
done. The critical faculty is awake, and the 
word of any one text will perhaps not neces- 
sarily be unhesitatingly followed hereafter. I 
can only answer that I try to be fair. My judg- 
ment is not infallible, and my knowledge is not 
encyclopaedic, so I can only ask such confidence 
as an honest desire deserves. By all means 



DEVELOPMENT OP UNION AMONG COLONIES. 29 
II. 

As early as 1637 references may be found in 
the colonial records pointing to a desire for 
union among the colonies. The following ex- 
tracts will afford some insight into the motives 
and spirit that animated them in their actions 
at this time: 

It is ordered that the letter lately sent to the Governor by 
Mr. Eaton, Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Haynes, Mr. Coddington, &, 
Mr. Brereton, . . . , shalbee thus answered by the Gov- 
ernor : that the Court doth assent to all the ppositions (propo- 
sitions) layde downe in the aforesaid letter, but that the an- 
swere shalbee directed to Mr. Eaton, Mr. Hopkins, & Mr. 
Haynes, onely excluding Mr. Coddington & Mr. Bre-nton, aa 
men not to bee capitulated wt^iall by us, either for them- 
selves or the people of the Hand (Rhode Island) where they 
inhabite, as their case standeth.® [Oct. 7, 1640.] — Massachu- 
setts Colonial Records, /, p. SOS, 

1. At this court (7 Mo. 22 day 1642) the propositions sent 
from Connecticut [to Massachusetts] about a combination, 
&c were read, and referred to a committee to consider of 
after the court, who meeting, added some few cautions and 
new articles, and for the taking in of Plimouth (who were 
now willing, ) and Sir Ferdinando Gorges province, and so 
returned them back to Connecticut, to be considered upon 
against the spring, for winter was now approaching, and 
there could be no meeting before, etc. — Winthr<yp, History 
of New England, II, pp. 102-lOS. 

2. At this court (Mo. 3, 10, 1643) came the commissioners 
from Plimouth, Connecticut and New Haven, viz : from 
Plimouth Mr. Edward Winslow and Mr. Collins, from Con- 
necticut Mr. -^aynes and Mr. Hopkins, with whom Mr. 
Fenwick of Saybrook joyned, from New Haven Mr. Theophi- 
lus Eaton and Mr. Grigson. Our court chose a committee 
to treat with them viz : the governour [John Winthrop] and 
Mr. Dudley, and Mr. Brodstreet, being of the magistrates ; 
and of the deputies. Captain Gibbons, Mr. Tyng the treas- 
urer and Mr. Hathorn. These coming to consultation en- 
countered some difficulties, but being all desirous of union 
and studious of peace, they readily yielded each to other 
in such things as tended to common utility, &c, so as ia 
some two or three meetings they lovingly accorded upon 
these ensuing articles, which, being allowed by, our court, 



30 AMERI(3AN HISTORY STUDIES. 

and signed by all the commisaioners, were sent to be also rati- 
fied by the general courts of other jurisdictions ; . • .— 
Winthrop, History of New England, vol. II, p. 121f. 
By reason of ye plottings of the Narigansets, . 
the Indians were drawn into a general conspiracie against 
ye English in all parts, as was in part discovered ye yeare 
before . . . ; [this caused t''3 Colonies] to thinke of 
means how to prevente ye same, and secure them selves. 
Which made them enter into this neu union & confederation 
following. [The articles follow.] — Bradford, History of 
Plymouth Plantation, p. 416. 

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. 
Whereas we all came into these parts of America with the 
same end and aim, namely, to advance the kingdom of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, and to enjoy the liberties of the gospel 
in purity with peace ; and whereas by our settling, by the 
wise providence of God, we are further dispersed upon the 
seacoast and rivers than was at first intended, so that we 
cannot, according to our desire, with convenience commu- 
nicate in one government . . . : and whereas we live 
encompassed with people of several nations and strange 
languages, which hereafter may prove injurious to us or our 
posterity ; and for as much as the natives have formerly 
committed sundry insolences, . . . and have of late 
combined themselves against us, and seeing by reason of the 
sad distractions in England (which they have heard of,) and 
by which they know we are hindered ... of seeking 
advice, and reaping . . . protection, which at other 
times we might well expect ; we therefore do conceive it our 
bounden duty, ... to enter into a present consocia- 
tion ... for mutual help and strength . . . , that, 
as in nation and religion, so in other respects, we be and 
continue one^ . . . : 

I. Wiierefore it is fully agreed . . - between parties 
above named, . . . that they . . . be called by the 
name of the United Colonies of New England. 

II. These united colonies . . . enter into a fi.»:» and 
perpetual league of friendship and amity . . . both for 
preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the 
gospel, and for . . . safety . . 

III. It is further agreed, that the plantations which at 
present are or hereafter shall be settled within the limits of the 
Massachusetts, shc^U be forever uq^er the government Qf tb« 



DEVELOPMENT OF UNION AMONG COLONIES. 31 

Massachusetts, and shall have iurisdiction among themselves 
in all cases as an entire body ; [same provision follows 
in regai'd to Connecticut, Plymouth, and New Haven.] 
. . provided that no other jurisdiction shall ... be 
taken in as a distinct head or member of this confederation, 
nor shall any other ... be received by any of them ; 
nor shall any two . . . join in one jurisdiction, without 
consent of the rest, . . . 

IV. It is also . . . agreed, that the charge of all 
just wars, . . . shall, both in men and provisions . 
be borne, . . . , in manner following, viz. [in propor- 
tion to number of males from 16 to 60 years of age.] 

V. It is further agreed, that if any of these jurisdictions, 
. . be invaded by any enemy whatsoever, upon notice 

and request of any three [or two under conditions] magis- 
trates of that jurisdiction so invaded, the rest of the confed- 
erates, . . . shall . . . send aid . . . [as fol- 
lows :] Massachusetts one hundred men [furnished] . . . , 
and each of the rest 45 men so armed . . . 

VI. It is also agreed, that for the managing ... of 
all affairs . . . concerning the whole confederation, com- 
missioners shall be chosen [as follows :] two for the Massachu- 
setts, two for Plimouth, two for Connecticut, and two for 
New Haven, all in church fellowship with us, . . . to 
hear . . . and determine ... all affairs of war 
or peace, leagues, aids, charges, . . [This section also 
specifies place of meeting, etc.] 

VIII. . . . It is also agreed, that if any servant run 
away from his master into any of these confederate jurisdic- 
tions, . . . upon certificate of one magistrate in the 
jurisdiction out of which the said servant fled, . . . the 
said servant shall be delivered to his master . . . [In 
general the same provision in regard to criminals.] 

XL [The last article pertains to breaches of the articles.] 

Lastly, this perpetual confederation, and the several arti- 
cles and agreements . . . were . . . certified [as 
completed] at the next meeting held in Boston, (7) 7, 1643. 
— Winthrop, History of New England, vol. II, p. 12 If. 

The English Commissioners to New England, 
in 1665, pass the following, among other resolu- 
tions: 

There is no power in the charter [of Massachusetts] to 
incorporate with other colonjes, nor to exercise any power 



■V2 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

by that association : both belongs to the kings prerogative. 
If there be any other undecent expressions & repetitions of 
the word "commonwealth, " "state, " and the like, in other 
pages, wee desire they may bee changed. — Massachusetts 
Colonial Records, vol. IV, pt. 2, p. 213. 

To this the General Court of Massachusetts 
seut the following reply: 

. . . And also considering that they were severall col- 
onjes under one king, & come from their native country for 
one & the same end, & were here scattered at a great dis- 
tance amongst the wild salvages in a vast wilderness^ had no 
walled tounes or garrisons of souldjers for their defence, 
they apprehended the least they could doe was to enter into 
a league of amity and union one with another, ingaging, 

. . . jointly to assist each other . . . , this being 
the end of their then confoederating, ... to the end 
that as our distance of place one from another rendered ua 
weake, & layd us open to their rage and violence, so our 
union might be as well to them a terror as to us strength ; 
& through the goodness of God, wee have hitherto had large 
experience of the great good that by this confoederatioa 
hath redounded, not only to all his majesties subjects here 
planted, but even to the natives themselves, it having been a 
means to prevent much trouble & bloodshed among thera- 
selves, so that although since that warr [the PequodJ some 
of them have . . put us to a considerable charge . . , 
yet no massacre hath beene among us from that day to this, 
blessed be God for it. —Massachusetts Colonial Eecords, 
vol. IF, pt. 2, p. 231. 

Again, the General Court says that the com- 
missioners seem to desire 

to make a flame in the country . . by their high favors 
to discontented persons, & great countenance given to the 
Itoad Islanders, whose first rise and continuance hath beene 
such to the other colonjes as is not unknowne to any discreet 
observer in these parts ; and on the other hand, calling 
. . J the United Colonjes that usurped authoritje con- 
trary to the light of reason, . . . which therefore made 
it seeme to be their speciall design to disunite the colonjes 
& so to bring us unto ruine.— 76., pp. SSS-S4-' 

To the Assembly of Maryland, by Jacob Leisler. 

A. D. 1689 ; 29th September in the fort of New York. 
Gentlemen — I have received your acceptable letter th* 



DEVELOPMENT OP UNION AMQNG COLONIES. '66 

18 of this instant & cornmunicated ?.3 directed, wee have 
considered tie contents with due affection, & . . . em- 
brace with all our hearts your offers of a mutual! & amiable 
correspondence with you, which we shall labor to keep & 
preserve inviolable towards you, and without fail shall omitt 
nothing that may appeare any wayes to your intrest peace & 
weliare as we also doe with Boston & Connecticutt collony 
being of the same opinion with you, that it is the onely means 
to preserve . . . their majestie's interests. [King Will- 
iam and Queen Mary]. . . [Similar letters sent to 
Mass., Conn., etc.] — Doeumentai-y History of New Yurk, 
vol. 11, p. 19. 

' Agents of four colonies and several Indiaij 
chiefs met in 1684 to consider union. One of 
the sachems addressed the Massachusetts agent 
as follows: 

We all, namely, our governor, the governor of Virginia 
and the Massachusetts Colouey, and Maquese, are in oue 
covenant. We do plant here a great tree of peace, whos* 
branches spread so far as the Massachusetts Coloney, Vir- 
ginia, Maryland, and all that are in friendship with us and do 
live in peace, unity, and tranquility, under the shade of said 
tree. — Mass. Archives, XXX, p. SOS, cited in Frothingham. 

Governor Treat, of Connecticut, wrote to Got- 
eriin- Bradstreet, July 31, 1G89, in part, as fol- 
lows: 

I hope we shall be willing in the season of it, to revive the 
ancient confederation upon just terms and articles, holding 
forth a right consideration of our state compared with the 
other co\omQ5. —Frothingham, Rise of the U. S. Republic, 
p. 87, note. 

Governor Bradsteet wrote, February 3, 
1689-90, in the same spirit: 

All true Englishmen [ought] to lay aside their private 
animosities and intestine discords, and to unite against the 
common enemy. — Ih., 88. 

Circular to the Governors of the several proT* 
inces: 

New York, Aprill 2d, 1690: 
HoNBLE Sib : — [After stating danger from French and 
Indians, Governor Leister says, we] have likewise communi- 



C4 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

cated tliesame to the Governor of Boston, & the onlemen 
of Connecticutt are likewise advertised thereof, in so mncli 
that wee propose for a generall assistance that such persons 
as to you shall seem meet may be commissioned to treat with 
them of New England, Virginia, pensilvania and Jerseys, 
that we may conclude what may conduce most to 
the King's intrest, wellfare of the provinces. . . ,--Doo 
umentary History of New York, vol. II, p. 117. 

A. D. 1690 ye 30 Apprill : in N. Torke. 

Gentlemens — Lastmonday arrived heer the Comintioners 
off [of] Boston Plimouth en Caneticotwho have been taking 
[talking] off several businisconcurning the Indian war. . . 
[Signed Jacob Leisler. ] — Ih., p. 13S. 

N. YoRKE, Primo May 1690. 
At a meeting of ye commissioners of ye Province of New 
Yoi k & ye coUonies of ye Massachusetts, Plymouth & Con- 
necticut, 

It is concluded . . . that each of ye Collonies afores* 
ehall Provide and furnish ye undermenconed proporcons of 
Sonldiers with Answerable Provisions at their own Charges 
to Be sent with all Speed: — 

viz: 

By New Yorke four hundred 400 

By Massachusetts Colony one hundred & sixty 160 

By Connecticut Colony one hundred & thirty five. . • . 135 

By Plymouth Colony sixty 60 

By Maryland by Promise one hundred 100 

Id all eight hundred fifety five 855 

Further agreed [various things mentioned] That ye Of- 
ficers Be required to maintain good order Amongst ye Sol- 
diers to discountenance & Punish Vice & as much as raayba 
to Keep ye Sabbath and Maintain ye Worship of God. 

Jacob Leisler. 

William Stoughton. 

Saml Sewell. 

P. D. Lanct. 

John Wallet. 

Nathan Gold. 

William Petkim, 
--MassachusiUs Archive, JXXF/, 47, 



DEVELOPMENT OP UNION AMONG COLONIES. 35 

Leisler in a letter to the governments of New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, at- 
tempting to secure additional aid, said: 

I hope you will not be wanting so blessed a work at this 
time to please God and our gracious king. Losing the op- 
portunity and neglecting the season may cause the next gen. 
eration to curse us. — Frothingham, p. 93. 

Though the French colony contains, perhaps, not 30000 
men capable to bear arms ; yet these are all under the des- 
potic command and sole direction of their Governor-Gen- 
eral, . . . The strength of our coloni«s, on the other 
hand, is divided, and the concurrence of all necessary both 
for supplies of men and money. Jealous they are of each 
other ; some ill constituted ; others shaken with intestine 
divisions, and if I may be allowed the expression, parsimon- 
ious even to prodigality. Our assemblies are diffident of 
their Governors ; Governors despise their assemblies, and 
both mutually misrepresent each other to the court of Great 
Britain. Military measures demand secrecy and dispatch ; 
but while the colonies remain divided, and nothing can be 
transacted but with their universal assent, it is impossible to 
maintain the one or proceed with the other. Without a gen- 
■ eral constitution for warlike operations, we can neither plan 
nor execute. We have a common interest, and must have 
a common council ; one head and one purse. [An extract 
from a letter supposed to have been written by Gov. Living- 
ston of New York, and his friends Messrs. W. Smith and 
Scott, 1756.] — Massachusetts Hist. Society Col., series I, 
vol. VII, pp. 161-62. 

Mr. Nelson's memorial about the state of the north- 
ern colonies in America: 

24 Sept : 1696. 
Fifthly I am now to make another remark upon the prin- 
cipall, and greatest defect and mistake, in which we have 
been, and are yet under, I meane the number and independ- 
ency of so many small Governments, whereby our strength 
is not only divided and weakened, but by reason of their 
severall interests, are become and doe in a manner esteems 
each as foreigners the one unto the other, soe that whatever 
mischiefs doth happen in one part, the rest by the reason of 
this disunion remaine unconcerned and our strength thereby 
weakeued j whereas were the Colonies of New England, 



36 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

Hampshire, Road Island, Coiiecticot, New York joined in 
one, we then should be near to [ten?] or 15 for one of those 
of the French in Canada, and might reasonably propose 
. . '. to make an entire conquest of that place. • . . 
—New York Colonial Records, vol. IV, p. 209. 

MR. PENN's plan of UNION. [1698]. 

A Briefe and Plaine Scheam how the English Colonies in 
the North parts of America, viz: Boston, Connecticut, Road 
Island New York New Jerseys, Pensilvania, Maryland, Vir- 
ginia and Carolina may be made more useful! to the Crowne, 
and to one anothers peace and safty with an universall con- 
currence. 

1st. Tha.t the Severall colonies before mentioned do meet 
once a year, and oftener if need be, during the war, and at 
least once in two years in times of peace, by their stated and 
appointed deputies, to debate and resolve . . . [on 
measures for public good.] 

2. That in order to it two persons well qualified for sence 
sobriety and substance be appointed by each Province, as 
their Representatives . . [in Congress]. 

3. Tliat the Kings Commissioner for that purpose specially 
appointed shall have the Chaire and preside in the said Con- 
gresse. 

4. [Central meeting place.] 

5. [Suggests governor of New York as King's Commis- 
missioner. ] 

6. That tbeir business shall be to hear and adjust all mat- 
ters of Complaint or difference between Province and Prov- 
ince. As 1st where persons quit their own Province and goe 
to another, that they may avoid their just debts . . ., 
2d where offenders fly justice, . . ., 3dly to prevent 
or cure injuries in point of commerce, 4th, to consider of 
ways and means to support the union and safety of these 
Provinces against the publick enemies In which Congresse 
the Quotas of men and charges will be much easier, and 
more equally sett, than it is possible for any establishment 
made here to do ; for the Provinces, knowing their own con- 
dition and one anothers, can debate that matter with more 
freedome, and satisfaction and better adjust and ballance 
their affairs in all respects for their common safty. 

71y That in times of war the Kings High Commi.ssionr 
shall be generall or Chief Commander , — New York 

Colonial Documents f vol. IV, p. 296. 



DEVELOPMENT OF UNION AMONG COLONIES. 37 

From the scheme of Gov. Livingston, recom- 
mended to the Lords of Trade, May 13, 1701 : 

To settle the American Governments to the greatest pos- 
sible advantage, it will be necessary to reduce the number of 
them ; in some places to unite and consolidate ; in others to 
separate and transfer ; and in general to divide by natural 
boundaries instead of imaginary lines. If there should be 
but one form of government established for the North- 
American provinces, it would greatly facilitate the reforma- 
tion of them. . • .A nobility appointed by the king 
for life and made independent, would probably give strength 
and stability to American governments as effectually as her- 
editary nobility does to that of Great Britain. — Cited in 
Frothingham, p. 117. 

Shirley says in a letter dated Oct. 21, 1754, to 
Governor Morris, newly appointed governor of 
Pennsylvania: 

The best advice I can give you is to lose no time for pro- 
moting the plan of a union of the colonies for their mutual 
defence, to be concerted at home, and established by act of 
Parliament as soon as possible . I am laboring this 

point totis viribis. — Ibid, p. 146. 

Daniel Coxe, 1722, proposed that all the Brit- 
ish colonies be 

united under a legal, regular, and firm establishment, over 
which a lieutenant or supreme governor should be consti- 
tuted and appointed to preside on the spot, to whom the gov- 
ernors of each colony should be subordinate ; . . . that 
two deputies should be annually elected by the council and 
assembly of each province, who are to be in the nature of a 
great council or general (Convention of the states of the col- 
onies [to fix on quotas of men and money which] should be 
levied and raised by its own assembly in such manner as they 
should judge most easy and convenient. — Cited by Froth- 
ingham, p. 113. 

About 1725, when a proposal had been made 
by the Massachusetts assembly for a convention 
of all the colonies, it was pronounced by the 
Board of Trade as "a mutinous proposal." — 
Hutchinson's History of Mass., vol. Ill, p. 119. 



38 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

The following extracts give us an insight into 
the conditions from the standpoint of the 
colonial governors: 

Reasons why this great undertaking of building of New 
Forts &c extending the English settlements into the Indian 
country is not effected as begun by this Province alone. 

6thly. We have late experience how ineffectual Her Maj- 
esty's circular letters in the late war did prove, appointing 
the several Governors to send Commissioners to New York 
to agree upon certain quotas of men, and for a supply of 
money, and tho' the Governors of Virginia and Maryland 
did prevail with their people to assist us with some money, 
yet could not prevail with them to send any men ; some of 
the commissioners came others came not ; those that came 
refused to act without the rest, and gave reason enough to 
believe they were fond of the opportunity of that colour, by 
various excuses, doubts, fears and jealousies ; so parted do 
ing nothing. — New York Colonial Documents, vol. IV, 873. 

To carry on this design of extending the Christian settle 
ments and English forts into the Indian country for the se 
curity of all His Majesty's Plantations on this North Conti 
nent of America ; — 

I humbly begg leave to propose that it is best to be done 
in time of peace with France. 1st That one form of gov- 
ernment be establish' d in all the neighbouring colonies on 
this main continent. 

That they be divided into three distinct governments — to- 
wit. 

That Virginia and Maryland be annexed to South and 
North Carolina. 

That some part of Connecticut, New York, East and West 
Jersey, Pennsylvania and New Castle be added together. 

And that to Massachusetts be added New Hampshire and 
Rhoad Island and the rest of Connecticut. — Ibid, p. 874- 

The degree of union is well illustrated by the 
following extract from a letter of Gov. Fletcher: 

Our neighbours on the Right and left sitt at ea^e, they 
govern by theire own Fancies, Connecticutt full of people 
keep up a Comonwealth Power, oppress the better sort who 
dissent from them but will not send a man or sixpence to 
aur reliefl 



DEVELOPMENT OF UNION AMONG COLONIES. 39 

And from that Collony I could march up men dry foot to 
Repell our Enemies, from hence we havo a voyage of fifty 
leagues to Albany, In my absence the Councill here writ to 
all the neighbouring Collonies for men or money, the Repub- 
lick of Connecticutt quarrell att the Superscription of the 
Councills letter for want of theire proper Title. — Ihid. 

From Pensilvania they say they have nothing to send us 
but theire good wishes. East Jersey has sent us £248 and 
promiss to make itt £400 those remoter Collonies I have 

not yet heard from Nothing in my sight but an 

addition of Connecticutt and some other Colonys can sup- 
port us by paying equall duties to the Crown, the Acts of 
Navigation are wholy violated by these out lyers. 
I send this to Boston in hopes of a passage from thence if 
Sr William Phips do not intecept it. — New York Colonial 
Documents, vol. IV, p. 13. 

The governor of New York writes as follows 
yt the conditions in America: 

Notwithstanding their Majst Letfs Mandatorie to the sev. 
eral governments to assist this Province little or no assist- 
ance had been given or can be hoped for through the re- 
moteness of some Governments and Excuses and delays of 
others. 

That Pensilvania being most Quakers will give no men or 
money for warr unless they were joined to the Government 
of New York, by which that Province may be able to out- 
vote them. 

That this Province lying under heavy Taxes and Pres- 
sures, most of the young men and those that can in any way 
remove, depart this Province to the neighbouring Govern- 
ment where they are wholly free from Tax or any other 
Contrybution towards the Common Security. — Ihid, p. 63. 

A NEW STAGE — THE ALBANY CONGRESS — INSTRUC- 
TIONS TO COMMISSIONERS. 

"William Shirley, Esq. Captain General and Governor in 
Chief in and over his Majesty's Province of Massachusetts 
Bay in New England, 

To Samuel Welles, John Chandler, Thomas Hutchinson, 
Oliver Partridge, and John Worthington Esq'rs Greeting. 
Whereas, in pursuance of letters from the right honorable 
the Lords Commissioners for Trade and the Plantations, 
. . . a General Coavention of Commissioners for their 



40 . AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

respective Governments i.-< appointed to be lield at the cit^ 
of Albany in the month of June next [1754] for holding an 
interview with the Indians of the Five Nations and making 
them presents oa the part of said Governments usual upon 
such occasions, in order to confirm and establish their an- 
cient attachment to his Majesty and their constant friendship 
to his Majesty's subjects on this continent; and whereas 
the Great and General Court or assembly of the Province 
&f Massachusetts Bay aforesaid, have elected and appointed 
you to represent and appear for said Province at the Con- 
vention aforesaid for the purposes abovementioned ; as also 
for entering into articles of Union and Confederation with 
the aforesaid Governments for the general defence of his 
Majesty's subjects and interests in North America, as well in 
time of peace as of war : — 

Now I do, by these presents, empower and commisslonate 
you, the said Samuel Wells, John Chandler, Thomas Hutch 
inson, Oliver Partridge, and John Worthington, as Commis- 
sioners (or any three of you) to appear for and represent the 
Province of Massachusetts Bay aforesaid. 

Given under my hand and the public seal of the Province 
of Massachusetts Bay aforesaid, the nineteenth day of April, 
1754, in the twenty seventh year of his Majesty's reign. 

W. Shirley. 

By his Excellency's command: 
J. WiLLARD, Secretary. 

A true copy. 

Attest: Samuel Weller 
John Chandler. 
Ol'r Partridge. 
John Worthingtoit. 

Similar instructions were given to the com- 
missioners from the other provinces. — Massa- 
chusetts Historical Collections^ vol. V, 3d series, 
p. 9. 

It was proposed by the Governor, that to avoid all dis- 
putes about the precedency of the colonies, they should be 
named in the minutes according to their situation from north 
to south ; which was agreed to. — Ibid, p. S6. 

A motion was made that the Commissioners deliver their 
opinion whether a Union of all the Colonies is not at pres- 
ent absolutely necessary to their security and defence. The 
question was accordingly put, and it was decided in the 



bBVBLOPMENT OP UNION AMONG COLONIES. 4l 

affirmative unanimously. . . . Which proposal the Board 
determined to proceed upon after they had considered some 
method of effecting the Union between the Colonies. — Ihid- 
pp. 27-38. 

After debates held on the plan of a Union, it was moved 
if the Board should proceed to form the plan of a Union of 
the Colonies, [it ought] to be established by an Act of Par- 
liament. — Ihid, p. S9. 

That the said Colonies being in a divided disunited, state, 
there has never been any joint exertion of their force or 
counsels to repel or defeat the measures of the French, and 
particular Colonies are unable and unwilling to maintain the 
cause of the whole. — Ibid, p. 67. 

It is proposed that humble application be made for an 
Act of parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of which one 
general government may be formed in America, including 
all the said colonies, within and under which government 
each colony may retain its present constitution, except in 
the particulars wherein a change may be directed by the said 
Act, as hereinafter follows. . . . 

That the said general government be administered by a 
President-General, to be appointed and supported by the 
Crown; and a Grand Council, to be chosen by the repre- 
Bentatives of the people of the several Colonies met in their 
respective Assemblies. 

That the House of Representatives [of each colony] may 
and shall choose members for the Grand Council, in the fol- 
lowing proportion, that is to say, 

Massachusetts 7 Maryland 4 

New Hampshire 2 Virginia 7 

Connecticut ,. 5 North Carolina 4 

Rhode Island 2 South Carolina 4 

New York 4 — 

New Jersey 3 48 

Pennsylvania 6 

. . . That there shall be a new election of members of 
the Grand Council every three years. . . . 

That after the first three years, when the proportion of 
money arising out of each colony to the general treasury can 
be known, the number of members to be chosen for each 
colony shall from time to time . . . , be regulated by 
that proportion, yet so as that the number to be chosen by 
any one province be not more than seven, nor less than two. 

That the assent of the President-General be requisite to 
4 



42 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

all acts of the Grand Council, and that it be his office and 
duty to cause them to be carried into execution. 

That they raise and pay soldiers and build forts for th« 
defence of any of the colonies, and equip vessels of force to 
guard the coasts and protect the trade on the ocean, lakea 
or great rivers 5 but they shall not impress men in any col- 
ony, without the consent of the Legislature. 

That for these purposes they have power to make laws, 
and lay and levy such general duties, imposts or taxes, as to 
them shall appear most equal and just (considering the abil- 
ity and other circumstances of the inhabitants in the several 
colonies), and such as may be collected with the least incon- 
venience to the people ; rather discouraging luxury, than 
loading industry with unnecessary burdens. 

. . . That laws made by them for the purposes aforesaid 
shall not be repugnant, but, as near as may be, agreeable to 
the laws of England, and shall be transmitted to the King 
in Council for approbation, as soon as may be after their 
passing, and if not disapproved within three years after pre- 
Bentation, to remain in force. . . . 

And all civil officers are to be nominated by the Grand 
Council, and to receive the President-General's approbation 
before they officiate. — lb., pp. 70-73. 

Franklin, in 1789, speaks of the results of the 
rejection of the Albany plan of union of 1754 
as follows: 

On reflection, it now seems probable that, if the foregoing 
plan, or something like it had been adopted and carried into 
execution, the subsequent separation of the colonies from 
the Mother-country might not so soon have happened, nor 
the mischiefs suffered on both sides have occurred, perhaps, 
during another century. For the colonies, if so united, 
would have really been, as they then thought themselves, 
sufficient to their own defence, — and being trusted with it, 
as by ^e plan, an army from Britain for that purpose, 
would have been unnecessary. The pretenses for framing 
the Stamp Act would then not have existed, nor the other 
projects for drawing a revenue from America to Britain by 
acts of parliament, which were the cause of the breach, and 
attended with such terrible expense of blood and treasure, 
80 that the different parts of the empire might still have re- 
mained in peace and union. But the fate of this plan was 
singular. 4.fter many days' thorough discussion of all its 



DEVELOPMENT OP UNION AMONG COLONIES. 43 

par;?, in Congress, it was unanimously agreed to, and copies 
ordered to be sent to the assembly of each province t'oi con- 
currence, and one to the ministry in England for approba- 
tion of the crown. 

The crown disapproved it, as having too much weight in 
the democratic part of the constitution, and every assembly 
as having allowed too much to prerogative ; so it was totally 
rejected. — Cited in Frothingham, p. 149. 

Nothing can exceed the jealousy and emulation which 
they possess in regard to each other. The inhabitants of 
Pennsylvania and New York have an inexhaustible source of 
animosity in their jealousy for the trade of the Jerseys. 
Massachusetts Bay and Rhode Island are not less interested 
in that of Connecticut . . were they left to themselves, 
there would soon be a civil war from one end of the conti- 
nent to the other. — 76., p. 152. 

The circular to the various colonies, prepared 
by the legislature of Massachusetts, calling for 
a congress of the colonies, dated July 8, 1765, 
reads as follows: 

Sir, — The House of Representatives of this province, in 
the present session of General Court, have unanimously 
agreed to propose a meeting ... of committees from 
the houses of representatives or burgesses of the several 
British colonies on this continent, [give reasons] and to con- 
sider of a general and united . . . representation of 
their condition. . . — Niles, Principles and Acts of 

the American Revolution, p. 156. 

In organizing the Congress Oct 7, 1765, it was decided 
that the committee of each colony shall have one voice (vote) 
only in determining any question that shall rise in the con- 
gress. — lb., 162. 

Wednesday, Oct. 9th, 176-5, a. m. — . . . The congress 
resumed the consideration of the rights and privileges of the 
British American colonists, &c. . . — lb., 162. 

Thursday, Oct. 24, 1765, a. m.— . . . The Congress 
took into consideration the manner in which their several 
petitions should be preferred and solicited in Great Britain, 
and thereupon came to the following determination, viz : 

It is recommended by the Congress to the several colonies 
to appoint special agents for soliciting relief from their pres- 
ent grievances, and to unite their utmost interests and en- 
deavors for that purpose. — 76., 168. 



44 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

One stanza of a "song sung at Boston, in New 
England," 1765, entitled ''Advice from the 
Country," is of interest in this connection: 

With us of the woods 

Lay aside your fine goods, 
Contentment depends not on fine clothes 

We hear, smell and see, 

Taste and feel with high glee, 
A nd in winter have huts for repose. 

In 17G6 an article appears signed "A British 
American." — Frothingham, 194. 

Sam. Adams, Sept. 16, 1771, writes in the 
"Boston Gazette": 

I have often thought that in this time of common distress, 
it would be the wisdom of the colonists more frequently to 
correspond with and to be more attentive to the particular 
circumstances of each other. . . . The colonists form 
one political body of which each is a member. . . . The 
liberties of the whole are invaded ; it is therefore the inter- 
est of the whole to support each individual with all their 
weight and influence. — Frothingham, p. 263. 

1 
In the House of Burgesses in Virginia, March, 1773. 

And whereas the affairs of the colony are frequently con- 
nected with those of Great Britain, as well as the neighboring 
colonies . . . therefore . . . jBe it resolved, that a 
standing committee of [11 including Patrick Henry and 
Thomas Jefferson] be appointed . . . whose business it 
shall be to obtain [information concerning acts of British 
i^overnment] and to keep up and maintain a correspondence 
. . V . with her sister colonies. . . . Resolved, that 
the speaker of this House do transmit to the speakers of the 
different assemblies copies of the said resolutions . . . 
and request them to appoint some person or persons . . . 
to communicate from time to time with the said committee. 
— Cited in Frothingham, pp. 280-81. 

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the 
House is one of awful moment to this country. For my 
own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of 
freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of 
the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is 
only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and 
fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our 
country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, 



DEVELOPMENT OF UNION AMONG COLONIES. 46 

through fear of giving offensp, I slicmld consider myself 
as guilty of treason toward my country . . , 

They tell us, sir, that we are weak ; unable to cope witb 
60 formidable an adversary. . . . Sir, we are not weak, 
if we make a proper use of the means which the God of 
nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, 
armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as 
we possess, are invincible by any force which one enemy 
can send against us. 

Patrick Henry, March 28, 1775, in Virginia Convention. — 
Cited in American Orations, p. 183. 

QUESTIONS. 

1. Why were Mr. Coddlngton and Mr. Brereton not to be 
communicated with by the governor of Massachusetts ? 2. 
Wha1 does it prove in regard to union ? 3. What colony 
made the first movement toward confederation? /4. Name 
the provinces in New England, 1640. 5. Who were magis- 
trates? '^.6. Who were deputies? 7. Name reasons for 
union in 1643. 8. Who was Bradford? 9. Who was Win- 
throp? 10. Did the colonies have the ri^ht to form the con- 
federation? 11. Do you find any evidences of jealousy 
among the colonies? 12. What were the terms of union ? 
13. Were they just? 14. What qualification for being a 
"commissioner"? 15. What provisions in our present con- 
stitution can you find in the confederacy of 1643 ? 16. Did 
the English government approve of the confederacy? 17. 
What claims did the colonists make in regard to the benefits 
of the confederation? 18. Why did the English "commis- 
sions" dislike the use of the words state, commonwealth, 
etc., by the colonists? 19. Were the English "commis- 
sions" and the colonists on good terms? Why? 20. Was 
Jacob Leisler for union? 21. How did the Indian feel about 
unity ? 22. What did Governor Treat mean by the "ancient 
confederation"? 28. Under what name do you find Massa- 
chusetts sometimes spoken of? 24. Was Jacob Leisler an 
educated man? 25. Name the various times when there 
was a union more or less perfect. 26. Which were most 
numerous in America, the English or the French? 27. Why 
did the French get possession of so large a part of America, 
about 1750? 28. Name the reasons given by Gov. Living- 
ston. 29. What remedy was proposed for the weakness of 
the English ? 80. Can you see that union was wished for 
different purposes? 31. Why did the English wish to unite 
the colonies? 32. Why did the colonies desire to form a 
union? 33. Name the means the party of the "preroga- 
tive," the English party, proposed to bring about unity. 
34. Do you approve of Mr. Penn's plan of union? "^85. 
Which the better, his, or that of Governor Livingston, 1701? 
36. Name the various persons who proposed plans of union. 
87. Who were the greatest among them ? 38. How did the 
Board of Trade like conventions? 39. Why did Governof 



46 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

Fletcher not axpecfc anj help from Pennsylvania? 40 

Truce the steps that led to the Albany congi'cs.s. -11. Wliy 
were the colonies named in order from north to south ? _ 42. 
How are they ordinarily named now? 43. Who authorized 
the union? 44. Name the points in the plan of Franklin 
for a union, 1754. 45. Why were these articles of confed- 
ation rejected by the colonies? by England? 46. Compare 
this plan with that of 1643. 47. Wliich the better? 48. 
Importance of the word American as used about 1766. 49. 
Why did the colonies desire to unite about 1765 ? 50. Write 
all you can on the significance of the phrase "A British- 
American." 51. What were the committees of correspond- 
ence ?""52. In what states was the idea of having them con- 
ceived? 53. How did Patrick Henry regard union? 54. 
What kind- of union was possible? 55. Write an essay trac- 
ing the growth of the idea of union. 56. How is the poetry 
connected with the topic of union? 



CAUSES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 



iHdustrial, social, religious, and political causes 
for the Revolution may be found. Begins 
really with the first settlement of the country. 
Navigation Acts, 1660, 1664, 1672, important. 
Molasses Act, 1732, aids. Leaders, George III, 
from his aims; in America, Patrick Henry and 
Samuel Adams. Means of Agitation and Union, 
Committees of Correspondence, local and state. 
Important dates, 1761, 1765, 1768, 1770, 1773, 1774, 
1775, 1776. 



CHAPTER III 
CAUSES OF AMERICA!^ REVOLUTION ^ 

c^ N the last study we traced some of the move- 
"^ ments looking to a union of the colonies. 

*" "An attempt was made to show that two 
forces were at work, one tending to emj)hasize 
the importance of the colony, and the other the 
value and necessity of union. In the causes ol 
the American Revolution we shall find many 
factors which intensified the spirit of union. In 
fact, the necessity of union in order to resist 
the plans of the English king and ministry was 
in itself a great educative force in this move- 
ment. The right of local self-government was 
perhaps the most fundamental issue. The colo- 
nies were accustomed to make their own laws, 
and to live their own life, hence, when the acts 
of the king and parliament in the years follow- 
ing 1760, seemed to endanger these privileges, 
resistance appeared and increased till independ- 
ence was established. 

It must be seen clearly, if we are to under- 
stand this movement at all, that a spirit existed 
in America difl:'erent from that in England. The 
colonists already, as early as 17G0, looked at all 
social, political, and even religious questions 
out of different ej^es than their fellow citizens 
on the other side of the water. This spirit was 
the product of past forces in their colonial life. 
In short, it must be noticed that a new people 
was in process of formation. Hence, if any 
question arose which necessitated the yielding 
of one view or the other a conflict was sure tQ 



CAUSES OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 49 

occur. The literature of the period, 1760 to 
1776, is very abundant, both in American and in 
English publications. The debates in parlia- 
ment furnish the views of English statesmen. 
The letters that were sent from the English 
cabinet to governors and other oflQcials in 
America give us the spirit that animated the 
English government of the time. The instruc- 
tions that were sent by the colonial assemblies 
to their agents in England, the resolutions of 
the Stamp Act Congress, and of the first and 
second Continental Congresses, together with 
the letters and writings of statesmen of the 
time, preserve a very vivid picture of the views 
of the Americans. It is felt that in the follow- 
ing extracts the views of England and of the 
''Tories'' are not adequately set forth; the rea- 
son, the press of other duties which made the 
time at my command unequal to the necessities 
of the occasion. 

For those who can invest a few dollars in the 
very best body of sources which has yet ap- 
peared, I wish to speak of Prof. Hart's "Ameri- 
can History as Told by Contemporaries." The 
first volume is out, and the second, which brings 
the history down to 1783, is announced for this 
month. There are to be four volumes, pub- 
lished by Macmillan & Co., at $2.00 per volume, 
or 17.00 for the set 

The Acts of Navigation and of Trade of 1660, 
1664, and 1672 should be noted as factors in the 
formation of an American spirit hostile to Eng- 
lish conceptions. 

Act of Navigation, 1660. 

For the increase of shipping and encouragement of 
the navigation of this nation ... be it enacted, 
that ... no goods or commodities, wliatsoever, 
shall be imported into, or exported out of, any lands. 
Islands ... to his Majesty belonging ... in 
Asia, Africa or America, in any other ships or vessels 
, . . but in such ships or vessels, as do truly . . , 



50 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. ' ' 

belong to the people of England ... or are of the 
build of, and belonging to, any of the said islands . 

Section 18. And it is further enacted . . . that 
from and after the first day of April, which shall be in 
the year of our Lord 1661, no sugars, tobacco, cotton, 
wool, indigoes, ginger, fusticks or other dyeing wood of 
the growth , . . of an English plantation in Amer- 
ica, Asia or Africa shall be shipped, carried ... to 
any land . . , other than to such English planta- 
tions as do belong to his Majesty ... or to the 
kingdom of England. . . . —Rot. Pari. 12 C. II., p. 
2 nu. 6. 5 Statutes of the Realm, 2Jf6. Cited in Scott 
Development of Constitutional Liberty, pp. SI4-I6. 

Statute 15 Car. II., c. 7— A. D. 1663. 

Section fifth. And in regard [to] his Majesty's planta- 
tions beyond the seas [which] are inhabited and 
peopled by his subjects of this his kingdom of England, 
for . . . keeping them in a firmer dependence upon 
it, and rendering them yet more beneficial and advan- 
tageous unto it, in the further , , . increase of 
"^uglish shipping and seamen, vent of English wool 
«tiid other manufactures . . . 

Section sixth. Be it enacted etc., that no commodity 
of the growth, production, or manufacture of Europe, 
shall be imported into any land, island . . . colony 
or place ... to his Majesty belonging ... in 
Asia, Africa, or America, . . . but which shall be 
bona fide, and without fraud, laden and shipped in Eng- 
land, . . . and in English-built shipping, etc. . , 
—Cited in Scott, Appendix, pp. 316-17. 

Stat. 25 Car. II., c. 7— A. D. 1672. 
Sectioii fifth. And whereas, by oae Act passed in this 
present Parliament, ... it is permitted to ship, 
carry, convey, and transport sugar, tobacco, cotton, wool, 
indigo, ginger, fustick, and all other dyeing wood . . 
from the place of their growth ... to any other of 
your Majesty's plantations in those parts, and that 
without paying of customs for the same, [act here 
recites that this privilege has been abused by export- 
ing these articles to other countries, therefore] for the 
prevention thereof ... be it enacted that . . . 
if any ship or vessel which by law may trade in any of 
your Majesty's plantations shall . . . take on board 
any of the aforesaid commodities, [a bond shall be 



CAUSES OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 5^ 

given] to bring the same to England . . . and to 
no other place [except, of course, to another colony.] 

QUESTIONS. 

1. In what ships must all trade with England be car- 
ried on? 2. Where must all sugar, etc., be sent to be 
sold? 3. Why was the statute of 1763 passed? 4. If 
the colonies wished to buy any goods of Portugal, 
where must they first take them? 5. For what object 
did colonies exist? 6. What does 15 Car. II., c. 7 
mean? 7. What effect did the law of 1672 have oa 
colonial trade in sugars, etc.? 

The town of Boston, as early as May 24, 17G4, 
in instructions given to its delegates in the 
General Assembly of Massachusetts, gives us 
some indication of the spirit which was already 
abroad in regard to colonial rights. These in- 
structions were drafted by Samuel Adams. 
The whole series may be found in "American 
Patriotism." 

Our trade has for a long time labored under great dis- 
couragements, and it is with the deepest concern that 
we see such further difficulties coming upon us as will 
reduce it to the lowest ebb, if not totally obstruct and 
ruin it. . . . 

There is now no room for further delay; we there- 
fore expect that you will use your earliest endeavors ia 
the General Assembly that such methods may be tal;ea 
as will effectually prevent these proceedings against 
us. . . , 

[We fear] that these unexpected proceedings may b» 
preparatory to ne^v^ taxations upon us; for if our trade 
may be taxed, why not our lands? . . . This we 
apprehend annihilates our charter right to govern and 
tax ourselves. It strikes at our British privileges, 
which, as we have never forfeited them, we hold ia 
common with our fellow subjects who are natives of 
Britain. If taxes are laid upon us in any shape with- 
out our having a legal representation where they are 
laid, are we not reduced from the character of free sut>- 
jects to the miserable state of tributary slaves? — Amer- 
ican Patriotism, p. 2 f. 

October 19, 1765, the Convention of Dele- 
gates from nine of the colonies — the Stamp Act 



52 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

Congress — formulates the principles of the 
American people in these words: 

The members of this Congress, sincerely devoted, 
with the warmest sentiments of affection and duty, to 
his Majesty's person and government, inviolably at- 
tached to the present happy establishment of the Pro- 
testant succession; . . . having considered as ma- 
turely as time will permit, the circumstances of the 
said colonies, esteem it our indispensable duty to make 
the following declarations of our humble opinion 
respecting the most essential rights and liberties of 
the colonists and of the grievances under which they 
labor by reason of the several late acts of Parliament: 

1. That his Majesty's subjects, in these colonies, owe 
the same allegiance to the crown of Groat Britain, that 
is owing from his subjects born within the realm; and 
all due subordination to that august body, the Parlia- 
ment of Great Britain. 

2. That his Majesty's liege subjects, in these colonies, 
are entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of 
his natural-born subjects within the kingdom of Great 
Britain. 

3. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of 
a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that 
no taxes be imposed on them but with their own con- 
Bent, given personally, or by their representatives. 

4. That the people of these colonies are not, and from 
their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the 
House of Commons in Great Britain. 

5. That the only representatives of the people of 
these colonies, are persons chosen therein by them- 
selves; and that no taxes ever have been, or can be 
constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respec- 
tive legislatures. 

6. That all supplies to the crown being the free gifts 
of the people, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with 
the principles and spirit of the British constitution, for 
the people of Great Britain to grant to his Majesty, the 
property of the colonists. 

8. That the late act of Parliament entitled, "An act 
for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and 
other duties in the British colonies and plantations in 
America, etc.," by imposing taxes on the inhabitants 
of these colonies, and the said act, and several other 



CAUSES OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 63 

acts, by extending the jurisdiction of the courts of 
admiralty beyond its ancient limits, have a manifest 
tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the 
colonists. . . . — Niles' "Principles and Acts of the 
Revolution." under New York. 

The Resolves of the House of Burgesses of 
Virginia, passed May 16, 1769, may also be cited 
to show the constitutional doctrines set forth 
some four years afterwards by that colony, 
which later, when a state, became known as 
the Mother of Presidents. 

Resolved, Nemine contradiccntc. That the sole right of 
Imposing taxes on the inhabitants of this, his Majesty's 
colony and Dominion of Virginia, is now, and hath 
been, legally and constitutionally vested in the House 
of Burgesses, lawfully convened, according to the 
sncient and established practice, with the consent of 
the council, and of his Majesty, the King of Great 
Britain, or his Governor for the time being. 

Resolved, Nemine contrudicente. That it is the un- 
doubted privilege of the inhabitants of this colony to 
peition their Sovereign for redress of grievances; and 
that it is lawful ... to procure the concurrence of 
His Majesty's other colonies, . . . praying the 
royal interposition in favor of the violated rights of 
America. » 

Resolved, Nemine contradicente. That all trials for 
treason, ... or for any felony or crime whatso- 
ever, committed ... in said colony . . . ought 
of right to be had, and conducted in and before His 
Majesty's courts, held within his said colony, . . . ; 
and that the seizing . . . and sending such person 
. . . beyond the sea to be tried, is highly derogatory 
of the rights of British subjects, . . .—Cited in Chan- 
nlng, The United States of Ameripa, p. 300. 

Patrick Henry formulates their doctrines in 
these stirring sentences, May 29, 1765 : 

Whereas, The Honorable House of Commons, in 
England, have of late drawn into question how far 
the General Assembly of this colony hath power to 
enact law.s for laying of taxes . . .; for settling and 
ascertniningthesameto all future times, the House of 



54 AMERir,AN HISTORY STUDIES. 

Burgesses of this present General Assembly have come 
to the following resolves:^ 

Rcsolrcil, That the first . . . settlers of . . . 
Virginia, brought with them and transmitted to their 
posterity, ... all the privileges and immunities 
that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed 
by the people of Great Britain. 

Resolved, That his Majesty's liege people of this his 
ancient colony have enjoyed the right of being thus 
governed by their own Assembly in the article of taxes 
and internal police; [the same never yielded up; also 
the same recognized by king and people of Great 
Britain.] 

Jx'esalred, Therefore, that the General Assembly of 
this colony, together with his Majesty or his substi- 
tutes, have in their representative capacity, the only 
exclusive right and power to lay taxes and imposts 
upon the people of this colony; and that every attempt 
to vest such power in any other person or persons 
whatsoever than the General Assembly aforesaid, is 
illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust, and has a mani- 
fest tendency to destroy British as well as American 
liberty. 

Resolved, That . . , the inhabitants of this colony, 
are not bound to yield obedience to any law . . . 
designed to Impose any taxation whatsoever upon 
them, other than the laws ... of the General 
Assembly. , , . 

Unsolved, That any person who shall . . . assert 
. . . that any person, . . . other than the Gen- 
eral Assembly . . . have any right or power to 
. . . lay any taxation on the people here, shall be 
deemed an enemy to his Majesty's colony. — Cited in 
Chaimlng, pj). 51-52. 

Examination of Dr. Franklin before the Eng- 
lish House of Commons, in February, 17G6, rela- 
tive to the repeal of the American Stamp Act: 

Q. What is your name, and place of abode? 
A. Franklin, of Philadelphia. 

Q. Do the Americans pay any considerable taxes 
among themselves? 

A. Certainly many, and very heavy taxes. 

Q. Are not the colonies, from their circumstances, 
very able to pay the stamp duty? 



CAUSES OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 55 

A. In my opinion there is not gold or silver enough 
in the colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year. 

Q. Do not you think the people of America would 

BUbmit to pay the stamp duty, if it was moderated? 

A, No, never, unless compelled by force of arms. 
■> 

Q. What was the temper of America towards Great 
Britain before the year 1763? 

A. The best in the world. They submitted willingly 
to the government of the crown, and paid, in their 
courts, obedience to acts of parliament. . . . Na- 
tives of Britain were always treated with a particular 
regard; to be an Old England-man was, of itself, a 
character of some respect, and gave a kind of rank 
among us. 

Q. And what is their temper now? 

A. O. very much altered. 

Q. Did you ever hear the authority of parliament to 
make laws for America questioned till lately? 

A. The authority of parliament was allowed to be 
valid in all laws, except such as should lay internal 
taxes. It was never disputed in laying duties to reg- 
ulate commerce. 

Q. And have they not still the same respect for par- 
liament? 

A. No, it is greatly lessened. 

Q. To what cause is that owing? 

A. To a concurrence of causes: the restraints lately 
laid on their trade, . . . the prohibition of their 
making paper-money among themselves, and then de- 
manding a new and heavy tax by stamps, laking away, 
at the same time trials by juries, and refusing to receive 
and hear their humble petitions. 

Q. Was it an opinion in America before 1763, that the 
parliament had no right to lay taxes and duties there? 

A. I never heard any objection to the right of laying 
duties to regulate commerce, but a right to lay internal 
taxes was never supposed to be in parliament, as we 
are not represented there. 
. » . . . . . . 

Q. Suppose an act of internal regulations connected 
With a tax, how would they receive it? 



56 AMEUICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

A. I think it would be objected to. 

Q. Then no regulation with a tax would be submitted 
to? 

A. Their opinion is, that when aids to the crown are 
wanted, they are to be asked of the various assemblies, 
according to the old established usage; who will, as 
they always have done, grant them freely. And that 
their money ought not to be given away, without their 
consent, by persons at a distance, unacquainted with 
their circumstances and abilities. The granting aids 
to the crown is the only means they have of recom- 
mending themselves to their sovereign; and they think 
it extremely hard and unjust, that a body of men, in 
which they have no representatives, should make a 
merit to itself of giving and granting what is not its 
own, but theirs; and deprive them of a right they 
esteem of the utmost value and importance, as it is the 
security of all their other rights. 

Q. Are they (the colonists) acquainted with the 
declaration of rights? And do they know that, by that 
statute, money is not to be raised on the subject but by 
consent of parliament? 

A. They are very well acquainted with it. 

Q. How then can they think they have a right to levy 
money for the crown? . . . 

A. They understand that clause to relate to subjects 
only within the realm; that no money can be levied on 
them (i. e. those within the realm) for the crown, but 
by consent of parliament. The colonics are not sup- 
posed to be within the realm; they have assemblies of 
their own, which are their parliaments, and they are, 
in that respect, in the same situation as Ireland. . . . 
They think the parliament of Great Britain can not 
properly give that consent, till it has representatives 
from America; for the petition of right expressly says, 
it is to be by common consent in parliament; and the 
people of America have no representatives in parlia- 
ment to make a part of that common consent. 

A. They find in the great charters, and the petition 
and declaration of rights, that one of the privileges of 
English subjects is, that they are not to be taxed but 
by their common consent; they have therefore relied 
upon it, . . . that parliament never would, nor 



CaL*SES of AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 5? 

could, . . . assume a right of taxing tliem, till it 
had qualified itself to exercise such a right, by admit- 
ting representatives from the people to be taxed, who 
ought to make a part of the common consent. 

Q. What used to be the pride of the Americans? 

A. To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of 
Great Britain. 

Q. What is now their pride? 

A. To wear their old clothes over again, till they can 
make new ones. — Franklin, Works, lY, p. 700 f. 

Perhaps there is no documeut that gives us 
a deeper and keener insight into the thought of 
the times than Franklin's "Causes of American 
Discontent," written in 1768. The following 
quotations will indicate the scope of his argu- 
ments. It will be noticed that he writes as an 
Englishman. 

Frvom the time that the colonies were first considered 
as capable of granting aids to the crown, . . . it is 
said that the constant mode . . . was by requisi- 
tions made from the crown, ... to the several 
asemblies, . . . 

Had this happy method . . . been continued . . 
there is no doubt but all the money that could reason- 
ably be expected to be raised from them in any manner 
might have been obtained without the least . . . 
breach of the harmony of affections . . . between 
the two countries. 

[They believed that] whatever money was to be 
raised from the people in the colonies must first be 
granted by their assemblies, as the money to be raised 
in Britain is first to be granted by the House of Com- 
mons; . . . 

[Another act was passed] to oblige the several 
Assemblies te provide quarters for the soldiers, fur- 
nishing them with fireing (fuel), bedding, candles, 
small beer or rum, etc. 

[Later, 1767, another person, Townshend] projected 
the levying more money from America, by new duties 
on various articles of our own manufacture, as glass, 
paper, . . , etc., which were . . . for the pay- 
ment of salaries of governors, judges and other ofTi'^era 



58 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

of the crown in America, it being a pretty general opin- 
ion liere that those officers ought not to depend on the 
people there for any part of their support. 

They say there [in America] as to governors . . . 
that they are generaiiy strangers to the provinces they 
are sent to govern. They have no estate ... or 
natural relation there to give them an affection for the 
country; that they come only to make money as fast as 
they can; are sometimes men of vicious character . . 
As to judges, they allege that, being appointed from this 
country, and holding their commissions not during 
good behavior, as in Britain, but during pleasure, all 
the weight of interest or influence would be thrown into 
one of the scales. ... if the salaries are also to be 
paid out of duties raised upon the people without their 
consent, . . . 

They reflected how lightly the interests of all Amer- 
ica had been estimated here, when the interests of a few 
of the inhabitants of Great Britain happened to have 
the smallest competition with it. . . . The hatters 
of England have prevailed to obtain an act in their own 
favor, restraining that manufacture in America. . . . 

In the same manner have a few nail-makers, and a 
still smaller body of steel-makers . . . prevailed 
totally to forbid by an act of Parliament the erecting 
of slitting mills, or steel furnaces, in America. — Frank- 
lin's Wo7-ks; also in "Anieiican Patriotism." 

Stephen Hopkins, of Providence, Rhode Isl- 
and, sets forth the grievances of the colonies in 
a very elaborate paper. From it a few extracts 
are made, which bring out some points not 
found in the other documents cited: 

. . , Whether the colonies will ever be admitted 
to have representatives in Parliament — whether it be 
consistent with their distant and dependent state; 
whether, if it were admitted, it would be to their 
advantage — are questions we will pass by, . . . 

The colonies are at so great a distance from Eng- 
land that the members of Parliament can generally 
have but little knowledge of their business . . , and 
interests. . , 

For what good reason can possibly be given for mak- 
ing a law to cramp the trade and interests of many of 



CAUSES OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 59 

the colonies, and at the same time lessen . . . the 
consumption of the British manufactures in them? . . 
The duty of three pence per gallon on foreign, molasses 
. . . must operate as an absolute prohibition. This 
will put a total stop to the exportation of lumber, 
horses, flour and fish to the French and Dutch sugar- 
colonies. . . . Putting an end to the importation of 
foreign molasses . . . puts an end to all the costly 
distilleries in these colonies and to the rum trade with 
the coast of Africa, and throws it into the hands of the 
French. . . . 

By the same act of parliament the exportation of all 
kinds of timber and lumber, the most natural products 
of these colonies is greatly encumtered. . . . 

Enlarging the power and jurisdiction of the courts of 
vice-admiralty in the colonies, is another part of the 
same act greatly and justly complained of. Courts of 
admiralty have long been there in most of the colonies 
whose authority were circumscribed within moderate 
territorial jurisdiction. . . . 

But now this case is quite altered, and a custom- 
house officer may make a seizure in Georgia of goods 
ever so legally imported, and carry the trial to Halifax, 
. . . and thither the owner must follow him to de- 
fend his property; , . . 

We are not insensible that when liberty is in danger 
the liberty of complaining is dangerous; yet a man on 
a wreck was never denied the liberty of roaring as 
loud as he could, says Dean Swift. And we believe no 
good reason can be given why the colonies should 
not modestly and soberly inquire, what right the Par- 
liament of Great Britain have to tax them. — Cited in 
American Patriotism, p. 4 f- 

THE LETTERS FROM A FARMER. 

Among the most famous writings of the time, 
as well as the most influential, were the Letters 
of a Farmer. These letters were written by John 
Dickinson, a lawyer of Pennsylvania, in 1768. 
The sentiment of the man, and the arguments 
of the time are indicated in the following ex- 
tracts, taken from different parts of the twelve 
letters which he wrote and published in the 
newspapers of the day: 



60 AiMEUICAN tllSTOllY STUDIES. 

With a good deal of surprise I have observed, that 
little notice has been taken of an act of parliament, as 
injurious in its principle to the liberties of these col- 
onies, as the Stamp-Act was; I mean the act for sus- 
pending the legislature of New York. ... If the 
British parliament has a legal authority to issue an 
order, that we shall furnish a single artitle for the 
troops here, and to compel obedience to that order, they 
have the same right to issue an order for us to supply 
those troops with arms, cloths, and to compel obedi- 
ence to that order also; in short to lay any burdens 
they please upon us. What is this but taxing us at a 
certain sum, and leaving to us only the manner of 
raising it? How is this made more tolerable than the 
Stamp-Act? . . . 

"It is my opinion [quoted from Wm. Pitt] that this 
kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies." 
. . . "The Americans are the sons, not the bastards 
of England." "Taxation is no part of the governing 
and legislative power." . . . The taxes are a vol- 
untary gift and grant of the commons alone. In 
Legislation the three estates of the realm are alike con- 
cerned, but the concurrence of the peers and the crown 
to a tax is only necessary to close with the form of law. 
The gift and grant is of the commons alone." . . . 
"The distinction between legislation and taxation is 
. . . necessary to liberty." The commons of Amer- 
ica represented in the assemblies have ever been in 
possession of the exercise of this their constitutional 
right, of giving and granting their own money. "They 
would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it." 

The idea of a virtual representation of America in 
this house, is the most contemptible Idea that ever 
entered the head of man, — it does not deserve a serious 
refutation. ... 

For Who Are a Free People? Not those, over whom 
government is reasonably and equitably exercised, but 
those who live under a government so constitutionally 
checked and controlled, that proper provision is made 
against its being otherwise exercised. The late act is 
founded -on the destruction of this constitutional 
security. If the parliament have a right to lay a duty 
of Four Shillings and Eight pence on a hundred weight 
of glass, or a ream of paper, they have a right to lay 



CAUSES OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 61 

. duty of any other sum on either. . . . ; If they 
have a right to lay a tax of one penny upon us, they 
have a right to levy a million, for where does their 
right stop? At any given number of Pence Shillings 
or Pounds? To attempt to limit their right, after 
granting it to exist at all, is as contrary to reason — as 
granting it at all is contrary to justice. ... If they 
have any right to tax us — then whether our oivn money, 
shall continue in our own pockets or not, depends no 
longer on us, but on them, . . . There is nothing 
which we can call our own. or to use the words of Mr. 
Locke — "What property have we in that, which an- 
other may, by right, take when he pleases, to himself?" 
These duties, which will inevitably be levied upon us — 
which are now upon us — are expressly laid for the sole 
purpose of taking money. This is the true definition of 
"taxes." They are therefore taxes. This money is to 
be taken from us. We are therefore taxed. Those who 
are taxed without their own consent expressed by them- 
selves or their representatives are slaves. 

We are taxed without cur own consent, expressed by 
ourselves or our representatives. We are therefore 
Slaves. 

The three most important articles that our assem- 
blies, or any legislature can provide for, are First — the 
defence of the society; Secondly — the administratiou 
of justice; Thirdly — the support of civil government. 
Nothing can properly regulate the expense of making 
provisions for these occasions, but the necessities of 
society; its abilities; the conveniency of the modes 
of levying money in the manner in which the laws 
have been executed; and the conduct of the officers 
of governments. All which are circumstances, that 
cannot possibly be properly known, but by society 
itself; or if they should be known, will not probably 
be properly considered but by that society. . . . 
"We have all the rights requisite for our prosperity." 
The legal authority of Great Britain may indeed lay 
hard restrictions upon us; but like the spear of Tele- 
phus, it will cure as well as wound. Her unkindness 
will instruct and compel us, to discover, in our industry 
or frugality, surprising remedies — if our rights continue 
unviolated; for as long as the products of our labor. 



62 AMERICAN UISTORY STUDIES. 

and the rewards of our care, can properly be called our 
cwii, so long it will be worth our while to be industrious 
and frugal. But if when -Wc plow— s.s* — rtap — gather — 
and thresh — we find that we — plow — sov," — reap — gather 
^and thresh for others, whose Pleasure Is to be the 
Solo Limitation how much they shall take, ancj how 
much they shall leave, why should we repeat the un- 
profitable toiU "Horses and oxen are content with that 
portion of the fruits of their work, which their owners 
assign them, In order to keep them strong enough to 
raise successive crops; but even these beasts will mot 
submit to draw for their masters, until thty are subdued 
by whips and goads." . . . 

"If I am an Enthusiast, in anything; it is in my zeal 
for the perpetual dependence of these colonies on their 
mother country — a dependence founded on mutual 
benefits, the continuance of which can be secured only 
by mutual affections." 

For my part I regard Great Britain as a Bulwark, 
happily fixed between these colonies and the powerful 
nations of Europe. It is therefore our duty, and our 
interest, to support the strength of Great Britain. — Life 
and Writings of J. Dickinson, pp. 308-403. 

Lord Mansfield made a reply to Pitt (Chat- 
ham) in regard to the right of the English Par- 
liament to tax the coiouies. Something of an 
idea of his arguments may be seen in the follow- 
ing extracts: 

I am extremely sorry that the question has ever be- 
come necessary to be agitated, and that there should 
be a decision upon it. No one in this house will live 
long enough to see an end put to the mischief which 
will be the result of the doctrine which has been incul- 
cated; but the arrow is shot, and the wound already 
given. . . . 

. . , There can be no doubt, my Lords, but that the 
Inhabitants of the colonies are as much represented in 
Parliament, as the greatest part of the people in Eng- 
land are represented; among nine millions of whom 
there are eight which have no votes in electing mem- 
bers of parliament. Every objection therefore to the 
dependency of the colonies upon Parliament which 
arises to it upon the ground of representation goes to 



CAUSES OF AMERICAN UEVOLUTION". 63 

the whole present constitution of Great Briiani: and 
1 suppose it is not meant to new naoael that too. . . . 
A member of Parliament, chosen for any borough, 
represents not only the constituents and inhabitants of 
that particular place, but he represents the inhabitants 
of every other borough in Great-Britain. He reprer^nts 
the city of London and all the other commons of this 
land, and the inhabitants of all the colonies and domin- 
ions of Great-Britain; and is in duty and conscience, 
bound to take care of their interests. 

I am far from bearing any ill will to the Americans; 
they are a very good people, and I have long known 
them, I began life with them, and owe much to them, 
having been much concerned in the plantation causes 
before the privy council; and, so I become a good deal 
acquainted with American aifairs and people. I dare 
say their heat will soon be over, when they come to 
feel a little the consequences of their opposition to 
the Legislature. Anarchy always cures itself; but the 
ferment will continue so much the longer, while hot- 
headed men there. And that there are persons of weight 
and character to support and justify them here. . . . 

"You may abdicate your right over the colonies. 
Take care my Lords, how you do so, for such an act 
will be irrevocable. Proceed, then, my Lords, with 
spirit and firmness, and when you shall have estab- 
lished your authority, it will then be time to show your 
lenity. 

The Americans, as I said before, are a very good 
people, and I wish them exceedingly well; but they 
are heated and inflamed. The noble Lord who spoke 
before ended with a prayer. I can not end better than 
by saying to it. Amen; and in the words of Maurice, 
prince of Orange, concerning the Hollanders, "God 
bless this industrious, frugal, and well-meaning, but 
easily deluded people." — Goadiivh, British Eloquence, p. 
U8f. 

The following arguments are taken from the 
protest that was entered in the Lords' journal 
by some of the members of that house agtiinst 
the proposed repeal of the Stamp Act: 

This house has most solemnly asserted and declared, 
first, — 'TUat the King's majesty, by and v/it,h the advisa 



04 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

an(^ consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and 
commons of Great Britain, in Parliament assembled, 
had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and 
authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force 
and validity to bind the colonies and people of Amer- 
ica, subject to the crown of Gt. Britain in all cases 
whatsoever." Secondly, 'That tumults and insurrections 
of the most dangerous nature have been raised and car- 
ried on in several of the North-American colonies, in 
open defiance of the power and dignity of his Majesty's 
Government, and in manifest violation of the laws and 
legislative authority of this Kingdom.' Thirdly, 'That 
the said tumults and insurrections have been en- 
couraged and inflamed, by su.ndry votes and resolutions 
passed in several of the assemblies of the said prov- 
inces, derogatory to the honour of his Majesty's Gov- 
ernment, and destructive of the legal and constitu- 
tional dependency of said colonies, on the Imp-erial 
Crown and Parliament of Great-Britain.' 

"2dly, Because the laws, which this bill now proposes 
to repeal, was passed in the other house with very little 
opposition and in this without one dissentient voice, 
during the last session of Parliament, which we pre- 
sume, if it had been wholly, and fundamentally wrong, 
could not possibly have happened;" 

4thly, Because it appears to us, that a most essential 
branch of that authority, the power of taxation, cannot 
be properly, equitably, or impartially exercised, if it 
does not extend itself to all the Members of the State, 
in proportion to their respective abilities, but suffers 
a part to be exempt from a due share of those burdens 
which the public exigencies require to be imposed upon 
the who'.e; a partiality, which is directly repugnant to 
the trust reposed by the people in every legislature, 
and destructive of that confidence on which all Govern- 
ment is founded. 
• ; • • « • • 

6thly, Because not only the right but the expediency 
and necessity of the supreme Legislature's exerting ita 
authority to lay a general tax on our American colonies, 
whenever the wants of the public make It fitting and 
reasonable that all the provinces should contribute, in, 
& proper proportion, to the defence of the whole, appear 
to us undeniable. . . , 



CAUSES OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 65 

7thly, Because the reasons assigned in tne public 
resolutions of the provincial Assemblies, in the North 
American colonies, for their disobeying the Stamp- 
Act, viz., "That they are not represented in the parlia- 
ment of Gt.-Britain," extends to all other laws of what 
nature soever, which that Parliament has enacted, or 
shall enact, to bind them in times to come, and must 
(if admitted) let them absolutely free from any obedi- 
ence to the power of the British Legislature. . . . 

8thly, Because the appearance of weakness and 
timidity in the Government and Parliament of this 
kingdom, which a concession of this nature may too 
probably carry with it, has a manifest tendency to draw 
on farther insults, and, by lessening the respect of his 
Majesty's subjects to the dignity of his crown, and 
authority of his laws, throw the whole British empire 
into a miserable state of confusion and anarchy, with 
which it seems, by many symptoms, to be dangerously 
threatened. — Parliamentary Debates, 1761-1768, p. 368 f. 

From the Declaration of Rights of the Conti- 
nental Congress at Philadelphia, in 1774: 

Whereupon the deputies so appointed being now 
assembled, in a full and free representation of these 
colonies, taking into their most serious consideration, 
the best means of attaining the ends aforesaid, do, in 
the first place, as Englishmen, their ancestors, in like 
cases have usually done, for effecting and vindicating 
their rights and liberties. Declare, — 

That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North 
America, by the immutable laws of nature, the princi- 
ples of the English constitution, and the several char- 
ters or compacts, have the following Rights: — 

Resolved, n. c. d. 1. That they are entitled to life, 
liberty, and property, and that they have never ceded 
to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of 
either without their consent. 

Resolied. n. c. d. 2. That our ancestors, who first set- 
tled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration 
from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, 
liberties, and immunities, of full and natural-born sub- 
jects, within the realm of England. 

Resolied, n. c. d, 3. That by such emigration, they by 
no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost, any of those 
rights, but that they were, and their descendants now 



6G AMEUICAN HISTORY STDDIKS. 

are entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of ail such 
of ihem, as their local and other circumstances enable 
them to exercise and enjoy. 

RcsoJvcd, 4. That the foundation of English libeily, 
and of all free government, is a right in the people to 
participate in their legislative council; and as the 
English colonists are not represented, and from their 
local and other circumstances, cannot properly be, in 
the British Parliament, they are entitled to a free and 
exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial 
legislatures, where their right of representation can 
alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal 
polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, 
in such manner as has been heretofore used and accus- 
tomed. — Preston, Documents Illustrative of American His- 
tory. 

The hiring of the Hessians and other German 
troops brought on a long debate in the Com- 
mons, from which the following extracts are 
made : o 

Mr. Fox: I have always said that the war carried 
on against the Americans is unjust, that it is not prac- 
ticable. I say, that the means made use of are by 
no means such as will obtain the end. I shall confine 
myself singly to this ground, and shew this bill, like 
every other measure, proves the want of policy, the 
folly and madness of the present set of ministers. I 
was in great hopes, that they had seen their error, and 
had given over their endeavor to coerce, and to carry 
on war against America, by means of Acts of Parlia- 
ment, In order to induce Americans to submit to your 
legislature, you pass laws against them, cruel and 
tyrannical in the extreme. If they complain of one 
law, your answer to their complaint is to pass another 
more rigorous and severe than the former; but they 
are in rebellion, you say; if they are, treat them as 
rebels are wont to be treated. 

I have ever understood it as a first principle, that in 
rebellion you punish the individuals, but spare the 
country; in a war against the enemy, you spare indi- 
viduals, and lay waste the country. 

This last has ; een invariably your conduct against 
America. I suggested this to you when the Bostoo 
port bill passed. I advised you to find out the offend" 



CAUSES OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 67 

Ing persons and to punish tJiem; but what did you do 

instead of ihis? \ou Uud Ihe vviioie town of IIosLon 
under terrible contribution, punishing the innocent witti 
the guilty. You answer, that you could not come at the 
guilty. This very answer shews how unfit, and how 
unable you are, to govern America. 

Mr. Dempster said, he was sorry to see such a dis- 
position in administration to stifle and squash all 

enquiry He then turned, and took a short view 

of the Quebec bill, and concluded, by solemnly averring, 
that in his opinion, no Turkish emperor ever sent a 
more arbitrary and oppressive mandate, by a favorite 
bashaw, to a distant province, than that bill was with 
the instructions to the governor, which accompanied it. 

Mr. D. Hartley: In the course of our debates upon 
American measures, I frequently hear the terms of 
rebellion and rebels made use of, which I shall never 
adopt; not only because I would avoid every term of 
acrimony which might increase the ill-blood between 
us and our fellow-subjects in America, but likewise 
thinking as I do, that the ministry of this country have 
been in every stage the aggressors: I never will, as a 
Whig of revolutionary principles, confound terms so 
fundamentally the reverse to each other, as defensive 
resistance in the support of constitutional rights, with 
unprovoked and active treason. The colonies have been 
condemned unheard. I wish to enter my protest once 
for all, that I shall always think that cur American 
fellow-subjects have been driven to resistance in their 
own defence, and in support of those very claims which 
we ourselves have successfully taken up arms in former 
times, to secure us from the violence and tyrannical 
pretensions of the House of Stuart. These rights are 
the giving and granting freely our own property, and 
the security of charters. 

Honorable James Lettrell: The Americans have 
never sought nor desire to be independent of Eng- 
land, rhey thought ministry misinformed, therefore 
they requested to be heard, and however artfully they 
may have been deprived of that privilege before this 
House, I do respect it as the grand judicial inquest 
of the nation, which must be too high ... to 
condemn an individual without a hearing, much less 



68 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

three millions of subjects. Yet 'tis said that Parlifa- 
meut declared this war against America; let who will 
have done it, I have seen enough of that country to 
think it my duty to endeavor to express, how much 
I am adverse to so iniauitious, so impolitic a persecu- 
tion. . . . Sir, I comprehend that ministry new 
apply to Parliament for seventeen thousand Germans 
to send to America, Good God, for what end? To en- 
slave a hundred and fifty thousand of their own coun- 
trymen, many of whom fled from tyrants to seek our 
protection. 

Mr. Alderman Bull: I cannot. Sir, . . . forbear 
to express my as'.onishment . . . that ... so 
many gentlemen should have been prevailed upon . . 
to approve and sanctify those cruel and arbitrary meas- 
ures ... by an unfeeling, an unrelenting admin- 
istration, who have dared to abuse the throne by their 
wicked and sanguinary councils, and whose whole con- 
duct has proved them entirely destitute of every prin- 
ciple of justice, humanity, and the religion of their 
country. . . . Sir, is it certain, is it probable that 
the exertions of ministerial tyranny and revenge will 
be much longer permitted? ... Or can it be ex- 
pected that the people of this country, reduced by 
thoussnds to beggary and want, will remain idle spec- 
tators till the sword is at their breasts, or dragoons at 
their doors? . . . 

The war which you are now waging is an unjust one, 
it is founded in oppression, and its end will be distress 
and disgrace. ... I shall not now trouble the 
House further, than to declare my abhorrence of all the 
measures which have been adopted against America; 
measures equally inimical to the principles of com- 
merce, to the spirit of the constitution, and to the 
honor, to the faith, and the true dignity of the British 
ua.iion.~ParHa7ncntary Debates. n75-'76, pp. 20-lOG. 

QUESTIONS. 

1. In what ways were the Navigation acts connected 
with the American Revolution? 2. What industries 
were encouraged in America? 3. What ones discour- 
aged? 4. Why do the people of Boston say their trade 
has been bad for a long time, in 1764? 5. What reasons 
are given in 1764 against taxation by British parlia- 
ment? 6. What reasons assigned for opposing? 
7. Would they have been willing to be taxed, if they 
had had representatives in Parliament? 8. What wer» 



CACSteS 0^ AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 69 

/-niiT-tc of Admiralty? 9. How were their powers ex- 
tended? 10. Were there any new reasons given in 1765 
that you do not find in 1764? 11. Why do the Vir- 
ginians in 1769 speak of right of petition? 12. What 
new reasons of discontent mentioned in 1769? 13. Com- 
pare arguments of P. Henry with those of S. Adams. 

14. Why does Franklin object to the Stamp Act? 

15. How did the Americans feel towards the English 
as set forth by Franklin? 16. Did he distinguish be- 
tween internal and external taxation? 17. Did the 
colonies in later years, 1768-76? 18. What privileges 
did he claim for the colonies? 19. What foundation for 
these claims? 20. What force in the arguments of Mr. 
Pownall? 21. Would we reason now much in the same 
way? 22. Is Franklin's answer satisfactory? 23. Sum- 
marize the arguments of Franklin in Causes of Amer- 
ican Discontent. 24. How does Stephen Hopkins' argu- 
ment differ from the others? 25. What new points 
does he suggest? 26. Are the Farmer's letters convinc- 
ing? 27. Is it true that any authority which may be 
abused ought not to be granted? 28. What are the 
arguments of Mansfield in regard to right of Parlia- 
ment to tax? 29. Does present doctrine follow his view 
or that of Dickinson and Chatham? 30. Were all the 
American arguments based on idea of nationality or 
etate sovereignty? 31. How did the colonists regard 
the English Constitution, as written or unwritten? 
32. How did they differ in regard to meaning of repre- 
sentation? 33. Did the Lords' protest set forth any 
good grounds for their position? 34. Compare ideas 
of Stamp Act Congress with ideas and arguments of 
Congress of 1774. 35. What points does John Rutledge 
emphasize? 36. Why were not the colonies virtually 
represented when they had such friends in Parliament 
as are cited from Parliamentary Debates? 37. Was 
there danger of over-taxation with such men there? 
38. Would not agitation alone in time have secured 
redress? 39. How far was the war caused by improper 
men in English cabinet? 40. Judged by the Declara- 
tion of Independence, who caused the war? 41. Cau 
you find proof that all the charges contained in th« 
Declaration of Independence were well founded? 



FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 
THE UNITED STATES 



Articles of Confederation inadequate. At- 
tempts to amend them, 1780, 1783, 1786, all fail. 
Meeting at Mt. Vernon, 1785; Annapolis Con- 
vention, 1786; Calling of Constitutional Con- 
vention, 1787. Convention to meet May 14; 
organizes May 25; adjourns September 17. 
Leaders in Convention: Washington, Presi- 
dent; Madison, Wilson, Randolph, Patterson, 
Ellsworth, Sherman, King, Rutledge, Mason, 
and the Pinckneys. Ratified by ten States by 
July, 1788. Washington inaugurated, April 30, 
1789. 



CHAPTER IV 

STEPS IN THE FORMATION OF THE 
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 

cm'N the first place it must be noticed that our 
'^ constitution is a growth and not a creation 
of any one moment in our history. Its 
elements may be traced baclv to the days when 
our Teutonic ancestors were yet in the swamps 
and forests of Germany. On American soil sev- 
eral stages in its growth may be marked. In 
the New England confederacy, in the Albany 
plan of union of 1754, in the various plans pro- 
posed about 1774 and 1775, in the Articles of 
Confederation of 1781, we see successive move- 
ments, all essential parts of the ultimate result 
obtained in the convention of 1787. Along 
another line of development we may also trace 
the growth of the forces which became factors 
in this result. The charters granted by the 
crown to Virginia, to Massachusetts, to Rhode 
Island, to Connecticut, and to other colonies, 
the charters granted by the proprietors to Mary- 
land, to Pennsylvania, etc., furnished many 
elements for the final structure. The principles 
of the common law, and the English constitu- 
tion itself directly, were not without great in- 
fluence. Anything like a complete study, there- 
fore, of the genesis of our constitution would 
necessitate an elaborate collection of the ma- 
terial contained in the foregoing suggestions. 
Our aim will be rather to trace the causes which 
were the immediate occasion for the constitu- 
tional convention, and to note the more impor- 



FORMATION OP CONSTITUTION. 73 

tant steps in the years which Mr. Fiske has so 
well called "The Critical Period." Alsc in 
studying the formation of the constitution it 
must ever be kept in mind that there were still 
in existence the two forces we have noticed at 
work in the colonial period, the one tending to 
union, and the other to localism. They oper- 
ated at this time both as factors in determining 
whether there should be a new constitution at 
all, and also in influencing the nature of the 
union that should be formed. The question of 
the location of sovereignty was at issue. Did 
it rest in the state, or in the union? Should it 
be placed in the people as a whole, or should it 
be left in the hands of the local powers? The 
compromises in the constitution must be traced 
to their causes if we are to have a full under- 
standing of the forces which were at work at 
the time. Sectionalism may be seen in many 
incidents occurring during these years, and es- 
pecially in the debates in the constitutional and 
ratifying conventions. Slavery as a question 
of a distracting import crops out in many places. 
It was not yet at all an overshadowing issue, 
but it made itself felt. Class interests and class 
feelings are not absent. Creditor and debtor, 
city and country, coast region and interior, are 
all factors in determining the final form of the 
struggle and its result. 

In connection with the quotations from the 
documentary records, extracts hav^ been made 
from the writings of a few of the great states- 
men of the time. It was the intention to have 
presented the views of a greater number of the 
statesmen of that day, but the usual plea has 
io be made that it takes a great amount of time 
to go through hundreds of pages of matter to 
find out the quotable material, and the time 
was not at hand It is believed, however, that 
the oxtraots made are directly to the point, and 

6 



74 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES,, 

will present the ideas of the daj very sharply 
and vividly. 

Thomas Paine, in 1780, in "Public Good," an 
article arguing that the western territory 
should belong to the United States collectively, 
instead of to Virginia and other states individu- 
ally, concludes with these remarkable words: 

I shall in this place take the opportunity of renewing 
a hint which I formerly threw out in the Pamphlet 
"Common Sense," and which the States will, sooner or 
later, see the convenience, if not the necessity, of adopt- 
ing; which is, that of electing a continental conven- 
tion, for the purpose of forming a continental constitu- 
tion, describing and defining the powers and authority 
of Congress. — Paine's Writings (Conway), vol. II, p. 66. 

Washington's letters at least as early as 1780 
show that he saw the necessity of a stronger 
bond of union aniong the states than the one 
which existed. Among other letters we find 
one to Hamilton, 4 March, 1783. 

The States cannot surely be so devoid of common 
sense, common honesty, and common policy, as to re- 
fuse their aid on a full, clear, and candid representation 
of facts from Congress. ... To me who know noth- 
ing of the business before Congress, nor of the arcana, 
it appears that such a measure would tend to promote 
the public weal; for it is clearly my opinion, unless 
Congress have powers competent to all general pur- 
poses, that the distresses we have encountered, the 
expense we have occurred, and the blood we have spilt, 
will avail us nothing. — Washington, Works, vol. Till, p. 
391. 

On March 31, 1783, he writes again to Hamil- 
ton in these words: 

My wish to see the union of these States established 
upon liberal and permanent principles, and inclination 
tu contribute my mite in pointing out the defects of the 
present constitution, are equally great. . . . No 
man in the United States is or can be more deeply im- 
pressed with a necessity of a reform In our present 



FORMATION OF CONSTITUTION. 75 

confederation than myself. No man perhaps has felt 
the bad effects of it more sensibly; for to the defects 
thereof, and want of power in Congress, may justly be 
ascribed the prolongation of the war. . . . — Wash' 
ington. Works, vol. Till, p. JflO. 

To Lafayette he writes: 

To avert these evils, to form a new constitution . • 
is a duty incumbent on every man . . . 

In Washington's Circular Letter to the Gov- 
ernors, 8 June, 1783, he sets forth his hopes and 
his fears again in eloquent words: 

Such is our situation, and such are our prospects; 
but, notwithstanding . . . happiness is ours, if we 
have a disposition to seize the occasion and make it 
our own; yet it appears to me there is an option still 
left to the United States of America, that ... it 
depends upon their conduct, whether they will be re- 
spectable and prosperous, or contemptible and misera- 
ble, as a nation. This is the time of their political 
probation; this is the moment when the eyes of the 
whole world are turned upon them; this is the moment 
to establish or ruin their national character forever; 
this is the favorable moment to give such a tone to our 
federal government as will enable it to answer the 
ends of its institution, or this may be the ill-fated 
moment for relaxing the powers of the Union, annihi- 
lating the cement of the confederation, and exposing us 
to become the sport of European politics, which may 
play one State against another . . . For, according 
to the system of policy the States shall adopt at this 
moment, they will stand or fall; and by their confirma- 
tion or lapse it is yet to be decided whether the revolu- 
tion must ultimately be considered a blessing or a 
curse: a blessing or a curse, not to the present age 
alone, for with our fate will the destiny of unborn 
millions be involved, . . . 

There are four things which . . . are essential 
. . . to tho existence of the United States, as an 
independent power. 

First. An indissoluble union of the States under one 
federal head. 

Second. A sacred regard to public justice. 



76 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

Third. The adoption of a proper peace establishment; 
and, 

Fourth. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly 
disposition among the people of the United States 
which will induce them to forget their local prejudices 
and policies; . . . — Washington, Works, vol. Till, p. 
i41-'43; also in "Old South Leaflets." 

The following additional extracts from Wash- 
ington's letters show his opinions in regard to 
the conditions of the times, and the necessity 
for a stronger government. 

Notwithstanding the jealous and contracted temper, 
which seems to prevail in some of the States, yet I 
cannot but hope and believe, that the good sense of the 
people will ultimately get the better of their prejudices; 
and that order and sound policy, though they do not 
come so often as one would wish, will be produced from 
the present unsettled and deranged state of public 
affairs. Indeed, I am happy to observe that the political 
disposition is actually ameliorating every day. Several 
of the States have manifested an inclination to invest 
Congress with more ample powers. . . . — To Jona- 
than Trumhull, Jr., Jan. 5, 1784. 

That the prospect before us is . . . fair, none can 
deny. [But] the disinclination of the individual States 
to yield competent powers to Congress for the federal 
government, their unreasonable jealousy of that body 
and of one another, and the disposition, which seems to 
pervade each, of being all-wise and all-powerful within 
itself, will, if there is not a change in the system, be 
our downfall as a nation, . . . and I think we have 
opposed Great Britain, and have arrived at the present 
state of peace and independency, to very little purpose, 
if we cannot conquer our own prejudices. . . . But 
I have many [fears] and powerful ones indeed, which 
predict the worst consequences, from a half-starved, 
limping government, that appears to be always moving 
upon crutches, and tottering at every step. . . My 
political creed, therefore, is, to be wise in the choice of 
delegates, . . give them competent powers for all 
federal purposes, support them in the due exercise 
thereof, . . . — To Benjamin Harrison, 18 January, 
17S.}. 



FORMATION OP CONSTITUTION. 77 

We are either a united people under one head and for 
federal purposes, or we are thirteen independent sover- 
eignties, eternally counteracting each other. If the 
former, whatever such a majority of the States, as the 
constitution points out, conceives to be for the benefit 
of the whole, should ... be submitted to by the 
minority. ... I confess to you candidly, that I can 
foresee no evil greater than disunion: ... As you 
have asked the question, I answer, I do not know that 
we can enter upon a war of imposts with Great Britain, 
or any other foreign power; but we are certain, that 
this war has been waged against us by the former; 
professedly upon a belief that we never could unite in 
opposition to it; and I believe there is no way of put- 
ting an end to [it] . . . but to convince them of the 
contrary. . . . 

To sum up the whole, I foresee . . . the many ad- 
vantages which will arise from giving powers of this 
kind to Congress . . . without any evil save that 
which may proceed from inattention, or want of wis- 
dom in the formation of the act; while without them, 
we stand in a ridiculous view in the eyes of the nations 
of the world, with whom we are attempting to enter 
into commercial treaties, without the means of carrying 
them into effect; who must see and feel that the Union 
or the States individually are sovereigns, as best suits 
their purposes; in a word that we are one nation to- 
day and thirteen to-morrow. — To James McEennj, 22 
August, 1785. 

The war . . . has terminated most advanta- 
geously for America, and a fair field is presented to our 
view; but I confess to you freely, dear Sir, that I do 
not think we possess wisdom or justice enough to culti- 
vate it properly. Illiberality, jealousy, and local policy 
mix too much in all our public councils for the good 
government of the Union. In a word, the confedera- 
tion appears to me to be little more than a shadow 
without substance, and Congress a nugatory body, . . 
— To James Warren, 7 October, 1785. 

My sentiments with respect to the federal government 
are well known. Publicly and privately have they been 
communicated without reserve; but my opinion is, that 
there is more wickedness than ignorance in the conduct 
of the States, or, in other words, in the conduct of those 
who have too much influence in the government of 



78 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

them; and until the curtain is withdrawn, and the 
private views and selfish principles, upon which these 
men act, are exposed to public notice, I have little hope 
of amendment without another convention. — To Eenry 
Lee, 5 April, 1786. 

I coincide perfectly with you . . . that there are 
errors in our national government which call for cor- 
rection; . . . but I shall find myself happily mis- 
taken if the remedies are at hand. We are certainly in 
a delicate situation; but my fear is that the people are 
not yet sufficiently misled to retract from error. To be 
plainer, I think there is more wickedness than igno- 
rance mixed in our councils. . . . That it is neces- 
sary to revise and amend the articles of confederation, 
I entertain no doubt; but wtiat may be the conse- 
quences of such an attempt is doubtful. . . . 

I think often of otw situation, and view it with con- 
cern. Prom the high ground we stood upon, from the 
plain path which invited our footsteps, to be so fallen, 
so lost, is really mortifying. But virtue, I fear, has in 
a great degree taken its departure from our land, and 
the want of a disposition to do justice is the source of 
the national embarrassments; . . . — To John Jay, 1& 
May, 1786. 

Is it not among the most unaccountable things in 
nature, that the representatives of a great country 
should generally be so thin as not to be able to execute 
the functions of government. To what is this to be 
ascribed? ... Be the causes what they may, it is 
shameful and disgusting. In a word, it hurts us. Our 
character as a nation is dwindling; and what it must 
come to, . . . our enemies have foretold; for in 
truth we seem either not capable, or not willing to take 
care of ourselves. . . . 

It was impolitic and unfortunate if not unjust in these 
States to pass laws, which by fair construction might 
be considered as infractions of the treaty of peace. It 
is good policy at all times to place one's adversary in 
the wrong. Had we observed good faith, and the west- 
ern posts had then been withheld from us by Great 
Britain, we might have appealed to God and man for 
justice; . . . But now we cannot do this . . . — 
To William Grayson, 26 July, 1786. 

The greater part of the Union seems to be con'srinced 
of the necessity of federal measures, and of investing 



FORMATION OF CONSTITUTION. 79 

Congress with the power of regulating the cotamerce of 
the whole. — To de la Luzerne, 1 August, 17S6. 

What astonishing changes a few years are capable of 
producing. I am told that even respectable characters 
speak of a monarchical form of government without 
horror. From thinking proceeds speaking; thence to 
acting is often but a single step. But how irrevocable 
and tremendous! What a triumph for our enemies to 
verify their predictions! What a triumph for the ad- 
vocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of 
governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the 
basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious! — 
To John Jay, 1 August, 1786. 

You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to ap- 
pease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know 
not where that influence is to be found, or, if attainable, 
that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. 
Influence is not government. Let us have a government 
by which our lives, liberties, and properties will be 
secured, or let us know the worst at once. — To Henry 
Lee, in Congress, 31 October, 17 S6. 

Fain would I hope, that the great and most important 
of all subjects, the federal government, may be consid- 
ered with that calm and deliberate attention, which the 
magnitude of it so critically and loudly calls for. Let 
prejudices, unreasonable jealousies, and local interests 
yield to reason and liberality. . . . 

[In] a letter . . . from General Knox, . . , 
among other things he says, "Their creeds, that the 
property of the United States has been protected from 
the confiscation of Britain by the joint exertions of all, 
and therefore ought to be the common proi)erty of all," . 
They are determined to annihilate all debts, public and 
private, and have agrarian laws, . . . — To James 
Madison, 5 November, 17S6. 

By a late act, it seems very desirous of a general con- 
vention to revise and amend the federal constitution. 
Apropos: what prevented the eastern States from at- 
tending the September meeting at Annapolis? Of all 
the States in the Union it should seem, that a measure 
of this sort, distracted as they were with internal com- 
motions and experiencing the want of energy in the 
government, would have been most pleasing to them. — 
To Henry Knox, 26 December, 1786. 

I am indirectly and delicately pressed to attend this 



80 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

convention [Philadelphia, 1787]. Several reasons are 
opposed to it in my mind . . . [Partly personal.] 
A thought has lately run through my mind, however, 
which is accompanied with embai-rassment. It is 
whether my non-attendance in the convention will 
not be considered as a dereliction of republicanism. 
[Some friends advised him to attend, others the con- 
trary. It was about three months after appointment 
before he decided to accept.] — To Henry Knox, 8 March, 
1787. 

Every attempt to amend the constitution at this time 
is in my opinion idle and vain. If there are characters, 
who prefer disunion, or separate confederacies, to the 
general government, which is offered to them, their 
opposition may, for aught I know, proceed from prin- 
ciple; but, as nothing, according to my conception of 
the matter, is more to be deprecated than a disunion or 
these distinct confederations, as far as my voice can go 
it shall be offered in favor of the latter. — To David 
Stuart, 30 November, 1787. 

Should it [the constitution] be adopted, and I think 
it will be, America will lift up her head again, and in a 
few years become respectable among the nations. It is 
a flattering . . . reflection that our rising republics 
,*>ave the good wishes of all the philosophers, patriots, 
and virtuous men in all nations; and that they look 
upon them as a kind of asylum for mankind. God 
grant that we may not disappoint their honest expecta- 
tions by our folly or perverseness. — To the Marquis de 
Chastellux, 25 April, 1788. 

The above extracts are all taken from Spark's 
Writings of Washington, vol. IX, pp. 5, 12-13, 
121-24, 140, 156, 166, 178-80, 183, 189, 204-206, 
226, 238, 284, 297. 

Part of the extracts from Jefferson's writings 
are taken from the edition of his work of 1830, 
and part from the new edition by Ford, pub- 
lished in 1895. 

I remain in hopes of great and good effects from the 
decisions of the Assembly [Constitutional Convention] 
over which you are presiding. To make our States one 
as to all foreign concerns, preserve them several as to 
all merely domestic, to give to the federal head some 



FORMATION OF CONSTITUTION. 81 

peaceable mode of enforcing its just auttioriiy. to 
organize that head into legislative, executive, and 
judiciary departments, are great desiderata in our fed- 
eral constitution. — Jefferson to Washington, Works of 
Jefferson fed. ISSOJ, vol. II, p. 222. 

I find by the public papers that your Commercial Con- 
vention failed in point of representation. If it should 
produce a full meeting in May and a broader reforma- 
tion, it will still be well. To make us one nation as to 
foreign concerns, and keep us distinct in Domestic ones, 
gives the outline of the proper division of power be- 
tween the general and particular governments. But 
to enable the Federal head to exercise the power given 
it, to best advantage, it should be organized, as the 
particular ones are, into Legislative, Executive, and 
Judiciary. The 1st and last are already separated. The 
2d should also be. When last with Congress I often 
proposed to members to do this by making of the Com- 
mittee of the states, an Executive committee during the 
recess of Congress and during its sessions to appoint a 
Committee to receive and dispatch all executive busi- 
ness, so that Congress itself should meddle only with 
what should be legislative. — Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 
10, 17SS, Works, vol. IT, p. 331. 

The negative proposed to be given them [Congress] 
on all the acts of the several legislatures is now for the 
first time suggested to my mind. Prima facie I do not 
like it. It fails in the essential character that the hole 
and the patch should be commensurate. But this pro- 
poses to mend a small hole by covering the whole gar- 
ment. . . . Would not an appeal from the State 
Judicatures to a federal court in all cases where the 
act of Confederation controlled the question, be as 
effectual a remedy, and exactly commensurate to the 
defect? . . . An appeal to a federal court sets all 
to rights. It will be said that this court may encroach 
on the jurisdiction of the state courts. It may. But 
there will be a power, to-wit, Congress, to watch and 
restrain them. But place the same authority in Con- 
gress itself, and there will be no power above them to 
perform the same office. . . . — Jefferson to Madison, 
June 20, 1787, Works, vol. IV, pp. 390-91. 

Our new constitution is powerfully attacked in th'S 
newspapers. The objections are that it would be to 
form the 13 states into one: that proposing to melt all 



82 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

down into one general government they have fenced 
the people by no declaration of rights, they have not 
renounced the power of keeping a standing army, they 
have not secured the liberty of the press, they have re- 
served the power of abolishing trial by jury in civil 
cases, . . . they have abandoned rotation in office; 
and particularly their president may be re-elected from 
4 years to 4 years for life, so as to render him a king 
for life like a king of Poland, and have not given him 
either the check or aid of a council. . . . Ycu will 
see that these objections are serious, and some of them 
not without foundation. — To William Carmichael, Paris, 
Dec. 15, 1787, Jefferson's Works (1895 ed.J, vol. IV, p. IfiO. 
. . . I like much the general idea of framing a 
government which should go on of itself peacefully, 
without needing continual recurrence to the state legis- 
latures. I like the organization of the government into 
Legislative, Judiciary and Executive. I like the power 
given the Legislature to levy taxes, ... I am cap- 
tivated by the compromise of the opposite claims of 
the great and little states, of the latter to equal and the 
former to proportional influence. I am much pleased 
too with the substitution of the method of voting by 
persons, instead of voting by states; and I like the 
negative given to the Executive . . . There are 
other good things of less moment. I will now add 
what I do not like. First the omission of a bill of 
rights providing clearly and without the aid of soph- 
isms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, pro- 
tection against standing armies, restriction against 
monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the 
habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of 
fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law 
of nations. . . . Let me add that a bill of rights is 
what the people are entitled to against every govern- 
ment on earth, general or particular, and just what no 
just government should refuse, or rest on inferences. 
The second feature I dislike, ... is the abandon- 
ment in every instance of the necessity of rotation in 
office, and most particularly in the case of the Presi- 
dent. [Here a prediction follows which has not been 
fulfilled.] ... I do not pretend to decide what 
would be the best method of procuring the establish- 
ment of the manifold good things in this constitution, 
and of getting rid of the bad. ... I own I am not 



FORMATION OF CONSTITUTION. 83 

a friend to a very energetic government. It Is always 
oppressive. The late rebellion in Massachusetts has 
given more alarm than I think it should have done. 
. . . After all, it is my principle that the will of the 
majority should always prevail. If they approve the 
proposed convention in all its parts, I shall concur in 
it cheerfully, in hopes that they will amend it when- 
ever they shall find it work wrong. I think our gov- 
ernments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as 
long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be 
as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part oi 
America. When they get piled upon one another in 
large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as 
in Europe. . . . — To James Madison, Paris, Dec. 20, 
1787, lb., 474-76. 

PUBLIC ACTION. 

The powers of the delegates to the first Conti- 
nental Congress of 1774 will indicate the pur- 
pose for which these delegates came together. 
The instructions to the Virginia and Maryland 
delegates illustrate the spirit of all, 

Virginia: To consider of the most proper and effect- 
ual manner of so operating on the Commercial conven- 
tion of the Colonies with the Mother country, as to 
procure redress for the much-injured Province of 
Massachusetts Bay, to secure British America from the 
ravage and ruin of arbitrary taxes, and speedily to 
procure the return of that harmony and union so ben- 
eficial to the whole Empire, and so ardently desired by 
all British America. 

Maryland: To attend a General Congress to assist 
one general plan of conduct operating on the Commer- 
cial connection of the Colonies with the mother coun- 
try, for the relief of Boston and the preservation of 
American Liberty. 

The Congress of 1774 passed the following 
resolutions in regard to the vote of the various 
delegations present: 

Resolved, That, in determining questions in this Con- 
gress, each colony or province shall have one vote; the 
Congress not being possessed of, or at present able to 



84 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

procure, proper materials for ascertaining the Impor- 
tance of each colony. — Journal of Congress, vol. I, p. 7. 

Od October 20, 1774, this Congress passed the 
NoD-importation agreement. It has sometimes 
been called the beginning of the government of 
the United States. 

[Name grievances, then say] To obtain redress of 
these grievances, ... we are of opinion, that a 
non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exporta- 
tion agreement, faithfully adhered to, will prove the 
most speedy, effectual, and peaceable measure: [terms 
follow] . . . 

Sec. 11. That a committee be chosen in every county, 
city and town by those who are qualified to vote for 
representatives in the legislature whose business it 
shall be attentively to observe the conduct of all per- 
sons touching this association; and when it shall be 
made to appear . . . that any person . . . has 
violated this association that [his name be] published 
in the gazette; to the end that all such foes to the 
rights of British-America may be publicly known, and 
universally contemned as the enemies of American lib- 
erty; and thenceforth we respectively will break off all 
dealings with him or her. 

Sec. 12. That the committee of correspondence, in the 
respective colonies, do frequently inspect the entries of 
their custom-houses, and inform each other, . . . 
of the true state thereof, . . . 

Sec. 14. And we do further agree and resolve, that 
we will have no trade ... or dealings . . . 
with any colony or province in North America, which 
shall not accede to or which hereafter shall violate this 
association, but will hold them as unworthy of the 
rights of freemen, and as inimical to the liberties of 
their country. 

And we do solemnly bind ourselves and our constitu- 
ents, ... to adhere to this association, until [re- 
dress of grievances obtained]. — Journal of Congress, vol. 
I, pp. 23-25. 

The Congress of 1775 met for the same pur- 
pose, but soon had to begin to act as a revolu- 
tionarj body, and carried on the government 



FORMATION OF CONSTITUTION. 85 

and the war till 1781, when the articles of con- 
federation were adopted. 

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. 

Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union be- 
tween the states of New Hampsliire, Massachusetts 
Bay . . . 

Article I. The style of this Confederacy shall be 
"The United States of America." 

Article II. Each State retains its sovereignty, free- 
dom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction 
and right which is not . . expressly delegated. . . 

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter 
into a firm league of friendship with each other, . . 
binding themselves to assist each other against all 
force offered to, or made upon them, . . . 

Even before the Articles of Confederation 
were ratified by the last state, Maryland, a pro- 
posal had been made in Congress, on February 
3, 1781, to submit the following amendment to 
the states for their action. It failed of adop- 
tion: 

Resolved, That it be recommended to the several 
States, . . . that they vest a power in Congress to 
levy, for the use of the United States, a duty of five per 
cent ad valorum, ... at the time and place of im- 
portation, upon all goods, ... of foreign growth 
or manufacture, . . . 

That the moneys arising from said duties be appro- 
priated to the discharge of the principal and interest 
of the debts already contracted . . . — Elliot's De- 
hates, vol. I, p. 92. 

On April 18, 1783, a second attempt to secure 
an amendment was made, which also failed of 
final adoption. 

Resolved, by nine States, that it be recommended to 
the several States as indispensably necessary to the 
restoration of public credit, ... to invest the 
United States in Congress assembled, with the power 
to levy, for the use of the United States, the following 
duties upon goods imported into the said States from 



86 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES, 

any foreign port, &c. . . . [List of articles.] — 
Elliot'^ Debates, vol. I, p. 93. 

On the 30th of April, 1784, Congress recom- 
mended for a third time an amendment to the 
articles, which was finally defeated by the ac- 
tion of New York, in the winter of 1786-87. The 
reasons for the proposed amendment read in 
part as follows, and are very important as show- 
ing one of the direct causes that led to the 
calling of the Constitutional Convention: 

The trust reposed in Congress renders it their duty 
to be attentive to the conduct of foreign nations, and 
to prevent or restrain, ... all such proceedings 
as might prove injurious to the United States. The 
situation of Commerce at this time claims the atten- 
tion of the several states, and few objects of greater 
importance can present themselves to their notice . . 
[reasons given]. 

Already has Great-Britain adopted regulations de- 
structive of our commerce with her West-India island. 
There was reason to expect that measures so unequal 
and so little calculated to promote mercantile inter- 
course, would not be persevered in by an enlightened 
nation. ... It would be the duty of Congress, as 
It is their wish, to meet the attempts of Great-Britain 
with similar restrictions on her commerce; but their 
powers on this head are not explicit, and the proposi- 
tions made by the legislatures of the several states 
render it necessary to take the general sense of the 
nation on this subject. 

Unless the United States in Congress assembled, shall 
be vested with powers competent to the protection of 
commerce, they can never command reciprocal advan- 
tages in trade; and without these, our foreign com- 
merce must decline, and eventually be annihilated. 
Hence it is necessary that . . . foreign commerce, 
not founded on principles of equality, may be re- 
strained, ... to secure such terms they have 

Resolved, That it be . . . recommended to the 
legislatures of the several states, to vest the United 
States, in Congress assembled, for the term of fifteen 
years, with power to prohibit any goods . . . from 
being imported into or exported from any of the 



FORMATION OF CONSTITUTION. 87 

States, In vessels belonging to . . . the subjects of 
any foreign power with whom these states shall not 
have formed treaties of commerce. 

Resolved, That it be . . . recommended, . . . 
to vest the United States, In Congress assembled, for 
the term of 15 years, with the power of prohibiting the 
subjects of any foreign state . . . unless author- 
ized by treaty, from importing into the United States 
any goods . . . which are not the product . . . 
of the dominions of the sovereign whose subjects they 
are. 

After the failure of these various attempts to 
amend the Articles of Confederation, the friends 
of greater power in the Union turned to the call- 
ing of a convention for taking the question into 
consideration. Virginia was the first state to 
act,- and on January 21, 1786, its legislature 
passed the following resolution: 

Resolved, that Edmund Randolph, James Madison, 
. . . be appointed commissioners, who or any five of 
whom, shall meet such commissioners as may be ap- 
pointed by other States in the Union, ... to take 
into consideration the trade of the United States; to 
examine the relative situation of the trade of the said 
States, . . . and to report to the several States such 
an act relative to this great object as when unani- 
mously ratified by them, will enable the United States 
in Congress assembled, to provide for the same . . . 
[Notice of action sent to other states.] — Elliot's De- 
bates, vol. I, p. 115. 

Commissioners from four other states, New. 
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, 
met with those from Virginia, and sent out a 
letter to the other states and to Congress asking 
that a convention be held on the second Monday 
of the following May. The interesting para- 
graphs in their resolutions for us read as fol- 
lows: 

To the Honorable the Legislatures of Virginia, etc., 
. . . the Commissioners from the said States, . . . 
humbly beg leave to report: . . . That the State of 



88 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

New Jersey had enlarged the object of their appoint- 
ment, empowering their commissioners, "to consider 
how far an uniform system in their commercial regula- 
tions, jud other important matters, might be necessary 
to ths ctTumon interest and permanent harmony of the 
several States": . , . [Your commissioners believe 
this] was an improvement on the original plan, and 
will deserve to be incorporated into that of a future 
Convention, , . . 

Under this impression, your Commissioners, . . . 
beg leave to suggest their unanimous conviction that 
[Commissioners should meet] at Philadelphia on the 
second Monday in May next, to take into consideration 
the situation of the United States; to devise such 
further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to 
render the constitution of the Federal Government ade- 
quate to the exigencies of the Union; and to report 
such an act for that purpose, to the United States in 
Congress assembled, as, when agreed to by them, and 
afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State, 
will effectually provide for the same. — Madison's Jour- 
nal of the Constitutional Convention, pp. 38-40. (Albert, 
Scott & Co. edition.) 

Congress took this resolution of the Annapo- 
lis convention into consideration, and finally 
passed, on February 21, 1787, the following: 

Resolved, That in the opinion of Congress, it is ex- 
pedient that, on the second Monday in May next, a 
Convention of Delegates, who shall have been appointed 
by the several States, be held at Philadelphia for the 
sole and express purpose of revising the Article of 
Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the sev- 
eral legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein 
as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by 
the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to 
the exigencies of Government, and the preservation of 
the Vmon.— Journal of Congress, vol. IV, p. -^. 

The legislatures of all the states, except 
Rhode Island, acted in conformity to this resolu- 
tion, and sent delegates to Philadelphia. They 
met and organized on May 25, and adjourned 
on September 17, 1787. The present constitu- 



FORMATION OF CONSTITUTION. 89 

tion is the result of their labors. The powers 
granted by the various state legislatures to their 
delegates may be seen from the following ex- 
tracts : 

Geobgia, Be It ordained, by the Representatives of 
the State of Georgia, . . . that William Few, Abra- 
ham Baldwin . . . be, . . . appointed Commis- 
sioners, who . . . are authorized ... to meet 
such deputies as may be appointed and authorized, by 
other States . . . and to join with them in devis- 
ing and discussing all such alterations and further pro- 
visions as maj^ be necessary to render the Federal Con- 
stitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union, and 
in reporting such an act for that purpose to the United 
States in Congress assembled, as, when agreed to by 
them, and duly confirmed by the several States, will 
effectually provide for the same, . . . — Elliot, De- 
bates, vol. I, pp. 126-138. 

MASSAcnusETTs. WJiercas, Congress did, on the 21st 
day of February, 1787, Resolve, That, ... a Con- 
vention of Delegates, ... be held at Philadelphia, 
for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles 
of Confederation . . . [rest of resolution quoted]. 
Now, therefore, etc. [Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, 
Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King, and Caleb Strong com- 
missioned' as delegates.] 

Connecticut. Whereas, The Congress of the United 
States, . . . have recommended that, ... a 
convention ... be held at Philadelphia, for the 
sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Con- 
federation; [names of delegates follow]. 

New York. Resolved, that Hon. Robert Yates, John 
Lansing, Jr., and Alexander Hamilton, Esqs. be . 
appointed delegates ... to meet such delegates 
. . . at Philadelphia, for the sole and express pur- 
pose of revising the Articles of Confederation . . . 
[etc as in Georgia]. 

New Jersey. The Council and Assembly „ . . 
have appointed you [names follow here] to meet such 
Commissioners ... as may be appointed by the 
other States in the Union, . . . for the purpose of 
taking into consideration, the state of the Union, as to 
trade and other important objects, and of devising such 
other provisions as shall appear to be necessary to 
7 



90 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

render the Constitution of the Federal Government 
adequate to the exigencies thereof. 

Pennsylvania. Be it enacted . . . that [names 
members] are hereby constituted and appointed Depu- 
ties from this State ... to meet such Deputies as 
may be appointed ... by other States . . . and 
join with them in devising, deliberating on, and dis- 
cussing, all such alterations and further provisions as 
may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution 
fully adequate to the exigencies of the Union, . . . 

Delawaee. [Almost the same as Pennsylvania.] 

Makytand. [Almost same wording as Pennsylva- 
nia.] 

Virginia. [Same wording as Pennsylvania.] 

North Carolina. For the purpose of revising the 
Federal Constitution. 

South Carolina. By virtue of the power and au- 
thority invested by the Legislature of this State, I do 
hereby commission you [names] to meet such Deputies 
. . . and to join with [them] in devising and dis- 
cussing all such alterations, clauses, articles and pro- 
visions, as may be thought necessary to render the 
Federal Constitution entirely adequate to the actual 
situation and future good government of the Confed- 
erated States; . . . [which] when approved and 
agreed to by them [the United States] and duly ratified 
and confirmed by the several States, will effectuallj 
provide for the exigencies of the Union. 

New Hampshire. ... To remedy the defects of 
our Federal Union. . . . 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Madison's Journal of tlie Constitutional Con- 
vention ought to be in the hands of every 
teacher who gives instruction in the history and 
civil government of the United States. Ko li- 
brary can be considered complete without it. 
A few extracts are made which will illustrate 
some of the great issues discussed in the con- 
vention, and the position taken on them by the 
members of the convention. However, it is not 
possible to give an adequate idea of the value 
of this work from any short extracts. 



IFORMATION OF CONSTITUTION. 91 

After three days spent in organizing, adopt- 
ing rules, and determining on plans, the debate 
began. Governor Randolph, of Virginia, pre- 
sented the first plan and opened his speech as 
follows, as given by Madison : 

. . . He observed, that, in revising the Federal sys- 
tem we ought to inquire, first, into the properties which 
such a government ought to possess; secondly, the de- 
fects of the Confederation; thirdly, the danger of our 
situation; and fourthly, the remedy. 

(1.) The character of such a government ought to be 
secure, first against foreign invasion; secondly against 
dissensions between members of the Union, or sedi- 
tions in particular States; thirdly to procure to the 
several States various blessings of which an isolated 
situation was incapable; fourthly, it should be able to 
defend itself against encroachments; and fifthly, to be 
paramount to the State Constitutions. — Journal of the 
Constitutional Convention, p. 59. 

Then, after discussing the defects and dan- 
gers, he proposed fifteen resolutions as the basis 
of a remedy. Among these resolutions the fol- 
lowing may be cited: 

1. Resolved, that the Articles of Confederation ought 
to be so corrected and enlarged as to accomplish the 
objects proposed by their institution; namely, "com- 
mon defense, security of liberty, and general welfare." 

3. Resolved, that the National Legislature ought to 
consist of two branches. 

7. Resolved, that a National Executive be instituted, 

9. Resolved, that a National Judiciary be established; 
. . .—lb., pp. 59-62. 

On May 30 Mr. Randolph made a motion 
which led to action that has been much dis- 
cussed, and concerning which very different 
opinions have been expressed. He moved that 
his first proposition, above cited, should be post- 
poned in order to consider the three following: 

(1.) That a union of the States merely federal will 



92 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

not accomplish the objects proposed by the Articles of 
Confederation, namely . . . 

(2.) That no treaty or treaties among the whole or 
part of the States, as individual sovereignties, would be 
sufficient. 

(3.) That a national government ought to be estab- 
lished, consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive 
and Judiciary. 

Consideration of the first and second of the 
above resolutions was deferred ; the third, after 
some debate, was adopted. In the course of the 
debate Gen. Pinclvuey said: 

he doubted whether the act of Congress recommending 
the convention, or the commissions of the Deputies to 
it, would authorize a discussion of a system founded on 
different principles from the Federal Constitution. 

Mr. Gouverneur Morris explained the distinction 
between a federal and a national, supreme government, 
the former being a mere compact resting on the good 
faith of the parties; the latter having a complete and 
compulsive operation. 

After the adoption of this resolution, in the 
discussion of another question, Mr. Madison 

observed, that, whatever reapon might have existed for 
the equality of suffrage when the Union was a federal 
one among sovereign States, it must cease when a 
national government should be put into the place. 

May 31, a debate took place over Mr. Ran- 
dolph's fourth resolution, ^'that the members of 
the first branch of the National Legislature ought 
to be elected by the people of the several states,^' 
which throws much light on the spirit of the 
time, and of the convention. 

Mr. Sherman opposed the election by the people, in- 
sisting that it ought to be by the State Legislatures. 
The people, he said, immediately should have as little 
to do as may be about the government. They want in- 
formation, and are constantly liable to be misled. 

Mr. Gerry. The evils we experience flow from the 
excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, 



FORMATION OF CONSTITUTION. 93 

but are the dupes of pretended patriots. ... He 
had, he said, been too republican heretofore; he was 
still, however, republican; but had been taught by ex- 
perience the danger of the leveling spirit. 

Me. Mason. ... He admitted that we had been 
too democratic, but was afraid we should incautiously 
run into the opposite extreme. . . . 

Mb. Wilson contended strenuously for drawing the 
most numerous branch of the Legislature immediately 
from the people. He was for raising the federal pyra- 
mid to a considerable altitude, and for that reason 
wished to give it as broad a basis as possible. No gov- 
ernment could long subsist without the confidence of 
the people. . . . 

Mr. Madison considered the popular election of one 
branch of the National Legislature as essential to every 
plan of free government, . . . 

Mr. Randolph. ... He observed that the gen- 
eral object was to provide a cure for the evils under 
which the United States labored; that in tracing these 
evils to their origin, ever man had found it in the 
turbulence and follies of democracy; that some check 
therefore was to be sought for against this tendency of 
our governments; and that a good senate seemed more 
likely to answer the purpose. — IJ)., pp. 73-81. 

CoL. Mason. Under the existing Confederacy, Con- 
gress represents the States, and not the people of the 
States; their acts operate on the States, not on the indi- 
viduals. The case will be changed in the new plan of 
government. The people will be represented; they 
ought therefore to choose the Representatives. . . . 
—75., p. 116. 

Mr. Wilson. ... He did not see the danger of the 
States being devoured by the national government. On 
the contrary, he wished to keep them from devouring 
the National Government, . , . — /&., p. 128. 

One of the most difficult questions before the 
convention was how to settle the varying inter- 
ests of the large and the small states^ At one 
time it seems as if the convention would break 
up over the question. A few expressions taken 
here and there from the debate may help us to 
understand the bitterness of feeling. 



94 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

Mb. Patterson. . . . The convention, he said, 
was formed in pursuance of an act of Congress; . . . 
that the amendment of the Confederacy was the object 
of all the laws and commissions on the subject. , . . 
The idea of a National Government, as contradistin- 
guished from a federal one, never entered into the 
mind of any of them. He was strongly attached to the 
plan of the existing Confederacy, in which the people 
choose their legislative representatives; and the Legis- 
latures their federal representatives. ... He al- 
luded to the hint thrown out by Mr. Wilson, of the 
necessity to which the large States might be reduced., 
of confederating among themselves. . . . New Jer- 
sey will never confederate on the plan before the 
Committee. She would not be swallowed up. He had 
rather submit to a monarch, to a despot, than to such 
a fate. . . . 

Mr. Wilson hoped, if the Confederacy should be 
dissolved, that a majority, — nay, a minority of the 
States would unite for their safety. — lb., pp. 139-41' 

At this point Mr. Patterson introduced the so- 
called New Jersey plan, which provided only 
for amending the Articles of Confederation. 
The debate was renewed with the following re- 
sult: 

Mr. Wilson. . . . With regard to the power of 
the convention, he conceived himself authorized to con- 
clude nothing, but to be at liberty to propose anything. 
. . . With regard to the sentiments of the people, he 
conceived it difficult to know precisely what they are. 
. . . Why should a National Government be unpopu- 
lar? . . . Will a citizen of Delaware be degraded by 
becoming a citizen of the United States? . . . 

Mr. Pinckney. The whole thing comes to this . . 
Give New Jersey an equal vote, and she will dismiss her 
scruples, and concur in the National system. — lb,, pp. 
171-m. 

On June 19, by a vote of seven states to three, 
it was carried to take up Mr. Randolph's plan 
instead of Mr. Patterson's. 

Mb. Wilson. Can we forget for whom we are form- 



FORMATION OF CONSTITUTION. 95 

Ing a government? Is It for men, or for the imaginary 
beings called Sltates? . . .—lb., p. 272. 

De. Frajstklin. The diversity of opinions turns on 
two points. If a proportional representation takes 
place, the small States contend that their liberties will 
be in danger. If an equality of votes is to be put jn its 
place, the large States say their money will be in dan- 
ger. . . . 

Mk. Dayton. ... He considered the system on 
the table as a novelty, an amphibious monster; and 
was persuaded that it never would be received by the 
people. 

Mr-. Martin would never confederate, If it could not 
be done on just principles. 

Mr. Bedford contended, that there was no middle 
way between a perfect consolidation, and a mere con- 
federacy of the States. The first is out of the question; 
and in the latter they must continue, if not perfectly, 
yet equally sovereign. . . . The large States dare 
not dissolve the confederation. If they do the small 
States will find a foreign ally, of more honor and good 
faith, who will take them by the hand, and do them 
justice. . . . 

Mr. Gerry, . . . If no compromise should take 
place, what will be the consequence. A secession he 
foresaw would take place, for some gentlemen seemed 
decided on it. . . .—lb., p. 297. 

Mr. Gouverneur Morris regretted the turn of thei 
debate. The States, he found, had many representa- 
tives on the floor. Few, he feared, were to be deemed 
the Representatives of America. He thought the South- 
ern States have, by this Report, more than their share 
of representation. . . . — lb., p. 317. 

On Monday, July 16, the turning point in the 
convention came. After a very deep and ear- 
nest, if not bitter, discussion, a compromise was 
seen to be practicable, by which the Senate and 
the House, as we now have them, came into 
being. It was some days later, however, before 
the formal terms were agreed upon. 

Mr. Randolph. ... He could not but think that 
we were unprepared to discuss this subject further. It 
will probably be in vain to come to any final decision 



96 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

with a bare majority on either side. For these reasons 
he wished the Convention to adjourn, that the large 
States might consider the steps proper to be talien, in 
the present solemn crisis of the business; and that the 
small States .night also deliberate on the means of 
conciliation. 

Mr. Patterson thought that it was high time "for the 
Convention to adjourn; that the rule of secrecy ought 
to be rescinded; and that our constituents should be 
consulted. No conciliation could be admissible on the 
part of the smaller States, on any other ground than 
than of an equality of votes in the second branch [the 
Senate]. If Mr. Randolph would reduce to form his 
motion for an adjournment sine die, he would second it 
with all his heart. 

Mr. Rutlidge could see no need of an adjournment 
because he could see no chance of a compromise. The 
little States were fixed, . . . All that the large 
States, then, had to do was, to de'^ide whether they 
would yield or not. — /&., pp. 358-59. 

There is not space for the proceedings in 
many of the ratifying conventions. But as the 
form of words was not greatly different, a few 
cases will illustrate the spirit, and in the main, 
the form in all. 

Delaware. We, the Deputies of the People of the 
Delaware State, in Convention met, having taken into 
our serious consideration the Federal Constitution, pro- 
posed and agreed upon by the Deputies of the United 
States, in a General Convention, held at the City of 
Philadelphia, . . . have approved, assented to, rati- 
fied, and confirmed, and by these presents do, . . . 
for and in behalf of ourselves and our constituents, 
fully, freely, and entirely approve of, assent to. ratify, 
and confirm, the said Constitution. — Elliot's Debates, 
vol. J, p. 319. 

Penwstlvajstia. In the name of the people of Penn- 
sylvania. Be it known unto all men that we . . . 
have assented to and ratified and by these presents do 
. . . in the name and by the authority of the same 
people, and for ourselves, assent to and ratify the fore- 
going Constitution for the United States of America. 
. . .— Elliot's Debates, vol. I, p. 319. 



FORMATION OF CONSTITUTION. 97 



QUESTIONS. 

1. Who was Thomas Paine? 2. What important 
part did he play in the American revolution? 3. What 
the style of his writings? 4. Has he had justice done 
him by American historians? 5. What view does he 
take of the western lands? 6. When was "Common 
Sense" written? 7. What relation did he believe the 
States ought to sustain to each other? 8. What did 
he desire a continental convention for? 9. Did time 
prove him right? 10. Was Washington hopeful of the 
future in 1783? 11. Did he feel any changes were 
necessary? 12. Compile from all his letters the rea- 
sons he considers the Articles of Confederation defect- 
ive. 13. Was Washington a hopeful man or not? 

14. Did he love his State or the Union the more? 

15. Did Washington believe that morally the people 
were improving or not? 16. What do you think of 
the four things Washington believed to be essential 
for our prosperity? 17. Why does he talk so much of 
local prejudices? 18. What is the important point in 
Washington's philosophy of government? 19, Where 
Iwas sovereignty located in Washington's view under 
the Confederacy? 20. In what way was Great Britain 
getting the better of us? 21. Does Washington get 
more or less hopeful as the years pass? 22. Had the 
treaty with England been kept? 23. Name the doc- 
trine set forth in Knox's letter to Washington, quoted 
in his letter to Madison. 24. In what section did 
Washington think there was the greatest need of re- 
form? 25. Give reason Washington assigned for 
attending the Constitutional Convention. 26. What 
does it show concerning his character? 27. Look up 
other reasons. 28. When do Washington's fears begin 
to lessen? 29. Do you find any difference in the tone 
of the letters of Washington and Jefferson? 30. What 
kind of powers does the latter wish given to Congress? 
31. Name the various changes he would have made in 
the Articles of Confederation. 32. What proposal does 
he object to? 33. Was he right or wrong? 34. What 
power did he propose to place in the hands of the 
courts? 35. Name the powers he liked in the new 
constitution. 36. Name those he objected to. 37. 
Were his objections well founded? 38. Is he or 
Washington the more constructive? 39. Name the 
motive which prompted the meeting of the first Con- 
tinental Congress. 40. How did they vote? 41. 
What effect later of this action? 42. When did the 
enforcing power of the Union begin? 43. What 
kind of a government formed by the Articles of Con- 
federation? i4. Name the proposed amendments to 
the Article^ of Confederation. 45. Would it have 
been best to have had them adopted? 46. What ques- 
tion directly led to the Constitutional Convention? 47 
Name the conventions held. 48. What was the work 



98 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES- 

of the Annapolis convention? 49. What did it vrish 
the next one to do? 50. What powers had the dele- 
gates to the Constitutional Convention? 51. For what 
purpose did Congress call the convention? 52. Did the 
convention act within its granted powers? 53. What 
important changes proposed in Articles of Confedera- 
tion by Randolph? 54. What change did he make 
later in the nature of his resolutions? 55. What does 
the debate in the convention indicate in regard to the 
nature of the government under the Articles? 56. 
Under the Constitution? 57. What marked difference 
between a national and a federal government? 58. 
Were the members of the convention believers in de- 
mocracy? 59. Name those friendly to the idea — those 
opposed. 60. Explain why so many opposed to the 
Idea. Gl. What ideas contending for mastery in the 
convention? 62. Over what question did the conven- 
tion come nearest breaking up? 63. Form of ratifica- 
tion of constitution. 64. Who adopted the constitu- 
tion? 6o. Write an essay on the defects of the Articles 
of Confederation. 66. On the political ideas and spirit 
of Washington and Jefferson; comparisons, 67. On 
the growth of the idea of Union. 68. On who stood for 
the best idea" on the whole in the Constitutional Con- 
vention. 69. Were the people then more moral than 
Qow? 70. Compare ideas of nationality and localism. 



INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION; 
NATIONALITY 



Broad and Strict Construction, 1791. Nation- 
ality and States' Rights in Kentucky. Resolu- 
tions, 1798; Hartford Convention, 1814; Nullifi- 
cation, 1832-33; Secession, 1860-61. Internal 
questions, 1789-92. Foreign affairs dominant, 
1793-1815. Material interests as bank, tariff, 
and internal improvements, 1815-1835. Growth 
of democracy, 1820-1860; Slavery important, 
1835-45, and dominant, 1845-70. Constitution 
tested In purchase of Louisiana, 1803. 



LofC. 



CHAPTER V 

INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITU- 
TION; NATIONALITY 

;HE Constitution formed in 1787 has been 
in process of growtli ever since through in- 
terpretation and cousU'uction. Of course, 
it has also grown by the addition of fifteen 
amendments. In time these have been con- 
tracted or expanded by the meanings which have 
been attached to them by the various depart- 
ments of the government. Perhaps the courts, 
and especially the*Supreme Court of the United 
States, have been the most potent factors in this 
development, yet it must ever be kept in mind 
that the political departments of the govern- 
ment, namely, the legislative and the executive, 
have also to give final decisions in all political 
questions; and the first interpretation of the Con- 
stitution, in law making, in all questions which 
may become judicial as well. 

There is scarcely a clause of the Constitution 
which has not been subjected to this process. 
It may, perhaps, be stated without exaggeration 
that there is not a clause in the Constitution so 
clear that varying ideas in regard to its meaning 
have not been set forth at some time by someone. 
It is also true that the Constitution as a whole 
had to have an interpretation placed upon it. 
Before a final decision was given, the court of 
armies was called in. The most desperate civil 
war of all history was needed to decide upon the 
location of sovereignty. Had it not been for the 
existence of sectional slavery, it is probable that 
there would never ha,ve arisen the necessity for 



GROWTH OF NATIONALITY. 101 

making the decision. Yet we must notice that 
when an attempt was made in our Constitution 
to place some powers in the central government, 
and to leave others in the states, the line of divis- 
ion drawn was an indefinite one, hence the 
chance came for such a struggle. We have 
already noticed the many factors which were 
tending to localism, and the counter ones which 
were developing a feeling of nationality as well 
as the fact. In this paper the larger part of the 
extracts are to show the varying interpretations 
of the Constitution connected with this idea of 
nationality. This discussion played in the main 
around the question of implied powers, the loca- 
tion of sovereignty, the slavery issue, and the 
right of determining the institutions of the terri- 
tories. It would be claiming too much to say 
that in treating these topics one had exhausted 
the subject. In the brief space allotted me I 
can do no more than give a fair insight into the 
first two, and touch the others. 

IMPLIED POWERS. 

The doctrine of "implied powers" first arose 
in connection with the establishment of the 
national bank in 1791. On this subject I have 
let Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison speak. 
Mr. Jefferson in his letter to President Washing- 
ton uses the following arguments: 

It Is an established rule of constructioa when a 
phrase will bear either of two meanings to give it 
that which will allow some meaning to the other 
parts of the instrument, and not that which would 
render all the others useless. C.ertainly no such 
universal power was meant to be given them. It 
was intended to lace them up straightly within the 
enumerated powers, and those without which, as 
means, these powers could not be carried into effect. 
It is known that the very power now proposed as a 
means, was rejected as an end, by the convention 
which formed the constitution. . . - 



102 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

The second general phrab-e is, "to make all lawa 
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the 
enumerated powers." But they can all be carried 
into execution without a bank. . . . 

. . . The constitution allows only the means 
which are "necessary," not those which are merely 
"convenient" for effecting the enumerated powers. 
If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this 
phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will 
go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity 
may not torture into a convenience in some instance 
or other, ... It would swallow up all the dele- 
gated powers, and reduce the whole to one power as 
before observed. Therefore it was that the constitu- 
tion restrained them to the necessary means. Can it 
be thought that the constitution intended that for a 
shade or two of convenience, more or less, congress 
should be authorized to break down the most ancient 
and fundamental laws? — Writings of Thomas Jeffer- 
son, vol. y (1895 edj, pp. 286-289. 

Hamilton argues for the constitutionality of 
thp bank, and in doing this struck a great blow 
for nationality. Some of the most telling points 
of his argument are these: 

Now it appears to the Secretary of the Treasury that 
this general principle is inherent in the very definition of 
government, and essential to every step of the progress 
to be made by that of the United States, namely, that 
every power vested in a government is in its nature 
SOVEREIGN, and includes, by fo7-ce of the term, a right to 
employ all the means requisite, and fairly applicable, 
to the attainment of the eiids of such power, and which 
are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions speci- 
fied in the constitution; or not immoral; or not con- 
trary to the essential ends of political society. 

It i:fi not denied that there are implied as well as ex- 
press powers, and that the former are as effectually 
delegated as the latter; and . . . there Is another 
class of powers, which may be properly denominated 
resulting powers. It will not be doubted that if the 
United States should make a conquest of any of the ter- 
ritories of Its neighbors they would possess sovereign 
jurisdiction over the conquered territory. This would 



GROWTH OF NATI0NALIT5f. 103 

rather be the result from the whole mass of the powers 
of the government, and from the nature of political 
society, than a consequence of either of the powers 
specially enumerated. 

Then ... as a power of erecting a corporation 
may as well be implied as any other thing; it may as 
well be employed as an instrument or means of carry- 
ing into execution any of the specified powers, as any 
other instrument or means whatever. 

. . . Necessary often means no more than needful, 
requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to, . . . and 
it is the true one in which it is to be understood 
as used in the constitution. The whole turn of the 
clause containing it indicates that it was the intent of 
the convention, by that clause, to give a liberal latitude 
to the exercise of the specified powers. The expres- 
sions have a peculiar comprehensiveness. They are: 
"To make all laws necessary and proper for carrying 
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other* 
powers vested by the constitution in the government of 
the United States, or in any department or office 
thereof." To understand the word as the Secretary of 
State does would be to depart from its obvious and 
popular sense and to give it a restrictive operation, an 
idea never before entertained. It would be to give it 
the same force as if the word absolutely or indispensa- 
bly had been prefixed to it. 

[It is] no valid objection to the doctrine to say that 
it is calculated to extend the powers of the government 
throughout the entire sphere of state legislation. The 
same thing has been said, and may be said with regard 
to every exercise of power, by implication or construc- 
tion. The moment the literal meaning is departed from 
there is a chance of error and abuse; and yet an adher- 
ence to the letter of its powers would at once arrest the 
motion of government. It is not only agreed on all 
hands that the exercise of constructive powers is indis- 
pensable, but every act which has been passed is more 
ar less an exemplification of it. . . . 

That which declares the power of the President to 
remove officers at pleasure acknowledges the same 
truth. 

It lea^'es, therefore, a criterion of what is constitu- 



104 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

tional and of what is not so. This criterion is the end 
to which the measure relates as a mean. If the end be 
clearly comprehended within any of the specified 
powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to 
that end and is not forbidden by any particular pro- 
vision of the constitution, it may safely be deemed to 
come within the compass of the national authority. 
There is also this further criterion, which may ma- 
terially assist the decision. Does the proposed meas- 
ure abridge a pre-existing right of any state or of any 
individual? If it does not, there is a strong presump- 
tion in favour of its constitutionality; and slighter 
relations to any declared object of the constitution may 
be permitted to turn the scale. — Works of Alexander 
Hamilton, vol. I, pp. 112-123. 

Madison was in the House at this time, and 
had at first been the spokesman of the adminis- 
tration. On this question of the bank he sepa- 
rated himself entirely from Hamilton, with 
whom he had so long worked, and became the 
leader, with Jefferson, of the newly forming 
Republican party. In Congress he said: 

After some general remarks on the limitations of all 
political power, he took notice of the peculiar manner 
in which the Federal Government is limited. It is not 
a general grant, out of which particular powers are 
excepted; it is a grant of particular powers only, leav- 
ing the general mass in other hands. So it had been 
understood by its friends and its foes, and so it was 
to be interpreted. 

The essential characteristic of the Government, as 
composed of limited and enumerated powers, would be 
destroyed if, instead of direct and incidental means 
any means could be used, which, in the language of 
the preamble to the bill, "might be conceived to be con- 
ducive to the successful conducting of the finances, 
or might be conceived to tend to give facility to the 
obtaining of loans. . . . 

The Doctrine of implication is always a tender one. 
The danger of it has been felt in other Govern- 
ments. . . . 

The delicacy was felt in the adoption of our own; 



GUO\yTn OF NATIONALITY. 105 

the danger may also be felt if we do not keep close to 
our chartered authorities. 

Mark the reasoning on which the validity of tue bill 
depends! To borrow money is made the end, and the 
accumulation of capital implied as the means. The 
accumulation of capital is then the end, and a bank 
implied as the means. The bank is then the end, and 
a charter of incorporation, a monopoly, capital punish- 
ments, etc., implied as the means. 

If implications thus remote and multiplied can be 
linked together, a chain may be formed that will reach 
every object of legislation, every object within the 
whole compass of political economy. 

The latitude of interpretation required by the bill is 
condemned by the rule furnished by the constitution 
itself. 

The danger of implied power does not arise from its 
assuming a new principle; we have not only practiced 
it often, but we can scarcely proceed without it; nor 
does the danger proceed so much from the extent ot 
power as from its uncertainty. — Benton, Debates, vol. I, 
pp. 275, 276. 

Fisher Ames. 

The doctrine that powers may be implied which are 
not expressly vested in Congress has long been a bug- 
bear to a great many worthy persons. They appre- 
hend that Congress, by putting constructions upon the 
constitution, will govern by its own arbitrary discre- 
tion; and therefore that it ought to be bound to 
exercise the powers expressly given, and those only. 

If Congress may not make laws conformably to the 
powers plainly implied, though not expressed in the 
frame of Government, it is rather late in the day to 
adopt it as a principle of conduct. A great part of our 
two years' labor is lost, and worse than lost to the 
public, for we have scarcely made a law in which we 
have not exercised our discretion with regard to the 
true intent of the constitution. — lb., p. 279. 

The question of the constitutionality of the 
bank came before the Supreme Court in 1819, 
in McCulloob vs. Maryland. Chief Justice Mar- 
shall wrote the opinion in the case, and held to 
the doctrine of implied powers. In this case 



Wd AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

again the idea of nationality was affirmed. In 
part he said: 

From these conventions the Constitution derives its 
whole authority. The government proceeds directly 
from the people; is "ordained and established" in the 
name of the people; and is declared to be ordained "in 
order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, 
insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of 
liberty to themselves and to their posterity." The 
assent of the States, in their sovereign capacity, is im- 
plied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that 
instrument to the people. But the people wei'e at per- 
fect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was 
final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be 
negatived by the State governments. The Constitu- 
tion, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, 
and bound the State sovereignties. 

This government is acknowledged by all to be one of 
enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise 
only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent 
to have required to be enforced by all those arguments 
which its enlightened friends, while it was depending 
before the people, found it necessary to urge. That 
principle is now universally admitted. But the question 
respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is 
perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise 
as long as our system shall exist. 

Among the enumerated powers we do not find that 
of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But 
there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the 
Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or im- 
plied powers; and which requires that everything 
granted shall be expressly and minutely described. . , 

Although, among the enumerated powers of govern- 
ment, we do not find the word "bank" or "incorpora- 
tion," we find the great powers to lay and collect 
taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to 
declare and conduct a war; and to raise and support 
armies and navies. 

But it may, with great reason, be contended that a 
government intrusted with such ample powers, on the 



GROWTH OF NATIONALITY. 107 

due execution of which the happiness and prosperity ol 
the nation so vitally depends, must also be intrusted 
with ample means for their execution. 

Is that coEStruction of the Constitution to be pre- 
ferred which would render these operations difficult, 
hazardous, and expensive? Can we adopt that con- 
struction . . . which would impute to the framers 
of that instrument, when granting these powers for the 
public good, the intention of impeding their exercise by 
withholding a choice of means? If, indeed, such be 
the mandate of the Constitution, we have only to obey; 
but that instrument does not profess to enumerate the 
means by which the powers it confers may be exe- 
cuted; nor does it prohibit the creation of a corpora- 
tion if the existence of such a being be essential to the 
beneficial exercise of those powers. It is, then, the 
subject of fair inquiry how far such means may be em- 
ployed. 

But the Constitution of the United States has not 
left the right of congress to employ the necessary 
means for the execution of the powers conferred on 
the government to general reasoning. To its enumera- 
tion of powers is added that of making "all laws which 
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execu- 
tion the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested 
by this constitution, in the government of the United 
States, or in any department thereof." 

Congress is not empowered by it to make all laws 
which may have relation to the powers conferred on 
the government, but such only as may be "necessary 
and proper" for carrying them into execution. The 
word "necessary" is considered as controlling the 
whole sentence, and as limiting the right to pass laws 
for the execution of the granted powers to such as are 
Indispensable, and without which the power would be 
nugatory. . . . 

Is it trae that this is the sense in which the word 
"necessary" is always used? 

To employ the means necessary to an end Is gen- 
erally understood as employing any means calculated 
to produce the end, and not as being confined to those 



108 AMERICAN HI-STORY STUDIES. 

single means without which the end would be entirely 
unattainable. 

A thing may be necessary, very necessary, absolutely 
or indispensably necessary. 

If the word "necessary" means "needful," "requisite," 
"essential," "conducive to" in order to let in the power 
of punishment for the infraction of law, why is it not 
equally comprehensive when required to authorize the 
use of means which facilitate the execution of the 
powers of government without the infliction of punish- 
ment? . . . That any means adapted to the end; any 
means which tended directly to the execution of the 
constitutional powers of the government, were in them- 
selves constitutional. 

Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope 
of the Constitution, and all means which are appro- 
priate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which 
are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and 
spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.— !77iaj/er, . 
Cases in Constitutional Law, vol. I, pp. 274-285. 

QUESTIONS. 

1. When was the present constitution formed? 2. Is 
it expressed in general or specific terms? 3. Who in- 
terprets the constitution? 4. Who interprets it finally? 
5. What do you understand by "implied powers"? 6. 
Could there be any implied powers under the Articles 
of Confederation? 7. Over what question did the dis- 
cussion of the "implied powers" first arise? 8. Sum- 
marize Jefferson's argument. 9. Can you give any 
example to illustrate his first sentence? 10. What did 
he believe "necessary" meant? 11. What principle 
does Hamilton start out with? 12. What three kinds 
of powers does he name? 13. What 'meanings does he 
give to "necessary"? 14. What means does he claim 
may be used when the right to the end is admitted? 
15. Summarize Madison's arguments. 16. Compare 
arguments of the three men. 17. Give Fisher Ames' 
argument. 18. Make an outline of the arguments of 
John Marshall. 19. Of all their arguments, which do 
you consider the greatest? Why? 20. Was it impor- 
tant to have the doctrine of implied powers prevail? 
Why? 

SOVEREIGNTY. IN NATION OR STATE? 

Perhaps the first formal statement of that 



GROWTH OF NATIONALITY. 109 

interpretation of the Constitution which af- 
firmed the right of the state to be the final judge 
of its powers was given in the Kentucky Reso- 
lutions of 1798. Indirectly out of these resolu- 
tions came nullification and secession. Whether 
this succession was legitimate or not is an open 
question, but the parentage, as far as use is 
concerned, is undoubted. The important re- 
solve read as follows: 

1. Resolved, That the several states composing the 
United States of America are not united on the princi- 
ple of unlimitBd submission to their general govern- 
ment, but thLt by compact under the style and title of 
a Constitution of the United States, and of amendments 
thereto, they constituted a general government for 
special purposes, delegated to that government certain 
definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the re- 
siduary mass of right to their own self-government; 
and that whensoever the general government assumes 
undelegate powers its acts are unauthoritative, void, 
and of no force. . . . 

To this resolution several states answered 
that the final judge of the powers of the federal 
government rested in the Supreme Court. The 
legislature of Kentucky replied in 1799 in these 
words, in part: 

Resolved, That this commonwealth consider the Fed- 
eral Union, upon the terms and for the purposes speci- 
fied in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and 
happiness of the several states; That it does now un- 
equivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and 
to that compact, agreeably to its obvious and real in- 
tention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolu- 
tion; That if those who administer the general gov- 
ernment be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by 
that compact, by a total disregard to the special delega- 
tions of power therein contained, an annihilation of 
the state governments and the creation upon their 
ruins of a general consolidated government will be the 
inevitable consequence; That the principle and con- 
struction contended for by sundry of the state legisla- 
tures, that the general government is the exclusive 



110 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop 
nothing short of despotism, — since the discretion of 
those who administer the government, and not the 
constitution, would be the measure of their powerff. 
., . . That this commonwealth does, under the most 
deliberate reconsideration, declare the said alien and 
sedition laws are, in their opinion, palpable violations 
of the said Constitution. . , . That, although this 
commonwealth, as a party to the federal compact, will 
bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does at the same 
time declare that it will not now, or ever hereafter, 
cease to oppose in a constitutional manner every at- 
tempt, at what quarter soever offered, to violate that 
£ompact. . . . — Cited in Cluskey, Political Text-Book, 

James Wilson, in the Pennsylvania ratifying 
convention, in 1787, outlined his opinion in re- 
gard to the nature of the Constitution in these 
words. This description may be contrasted 
with the preceding: 

The very manner of introducing this Constitution, by 
fhe recognition of the authority of the people, is said 
to change the principle of the present Confederation 
and to introduce a consolidating and absorbing govern- 
ment. . . . 

In this confederated republic, the sovereignty of the 
states, it is said, is not preserved. We are told that 
there cannot be two sovereign powers, and that a sub- 
ordinate sovereignty is no sovereignty. 

It has not been, nor, I presume, will it be, denied 
that somewhere there is, and of necessity must be, a 
supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable authority. 

His [Mr. Findley's] position is that the supreme 
power resides in the states, as governments; and mine 
is that it resides in the people, as the foundation of gov- 
ernment; that the people have not — that the people 
meant not — and that the people ought not, to part with 
it, to any government whatsoever. — Cited in Foster on 
the Constitution, pp. 10',-106. 

I consider the people of the United States as form- 
ing one great community; and I consider the people of 
the different States as forming communities, again. 



GROWTH OP NATIONALITY. HI 

on a "lesser scale. From this great division of the 
people into distinct communities, it will be found neces- 
sary that different proportions of legislative power 
should be given to the government, according to the 
nature, number, and magnitude of their objects. 

Whosoever considers, in a combined and comprehen- 
sive view, the general texture of the Constitution, will 
be satisfied that the people of the United States in- 
tended to form themselves into a nation for national 
yurijoses. They instituted for such purposes a national 
government, complete in all its parts, with powers 
legislative, executive, and judiciary, and in all those 
powers extending over the whole nation. — 76., lOJ-JG'J. 

Rawle, in his introduction to Blackstone, uses 
the following phrase. He wrote in 1825: 

"The secession of a State from the Union depends on 
the will of the people of such a State. The people 
alone, as we have already seen, hold the power to alter 
their constitution." — Cited in Foster, p. 113. 

The Massachusetts legislature (Federal), in 
discussing the annexation of Louisiana, 1803, 
indicated very clearly its views of the nature of 
the Constitution. 

That the annexation of Louisiana to the Union 
transcends the constitutional power of the govern- 
ment of the United States. It forms a new Confeder- 
acy, to which the States united by the former compact 
vire not bound to adhere. — lb., p. 116. 

A most elaborate discussion of the nature of 
the Constitution took place over the admission 
of Louisiana. Josiah Quincy, the leader of the 
Federalists, discussed the subject fully. Ex- 
tensive extracts are given from his speech, as it 
sets forth the views of his party at that time 
most ably and completely. 

But, sir, the principle of this bill materially affects 
the liberties and rights of the whole people of the 
United States. To me it appears that it would justify 
A revolution in this country, and that, in no great 
length of time, it may produce it. When I see the 



112 AMERICAN HISTORX STUDIES. 

zeal and perseverance with which this bill has been 
urged along its parliamentary path, when I know the 
local interests and associated projects which combine 
to promote its success, all opposition to it seems mani- 
festly unavailing. I am almost tempted to leave, with- 
out a struggle, my country to its fate. 

If there be a man in this House, or nation, who 
cherishes the Constitution, ... I fall not behind 
him in such sentiments. I will yield to no man in 
attachment to this Constitution, in veneration for the 
sages who laid its foundations, in devotion for those 
principles which form its cement and constitute its 
proportions. What, then, must be my feelings; what 
ought to be the feelings of a man, cherishing such sen- 
timents, when he sees an act contemplated which lays 
ruin at the foot of all these hopes. 

Mr. Speaker, there is a great rule of human conduct 
which he who honestly observes can not err widely 
from the path of his sought duty. It is, to be very 
scrupulous concerning the principles you select as the 
test of your rights and obligations; to be very faith- 
ful in noticing the result of their application; and to 
be very fearless in tracing and exposing their immedi- 
ate effects and distant consequences. Under the sanc- 
tion of this rule of conduct, I am compelled to declare 
it as my deliberate opinion that, if this bill passes, the 
bonds of this union are, virtually, dissolved; that the 
States which compose it are free from their moral obliga- 
tions, and that, as it will be the right of all, so it will be 
the duty of some, to prepare, definitely, for a separation: 
amicably, if they can; violently, if they must. 

The bill which is now proposed to be passed has 
this assumed principle for its basis: that the three 
branches of this national government, without recur- 
rence to conventions of the people in the States, or to 
the Legislatures of the States, are authorized to admit 
new partners to a share of the political power, in 
countries out of the original limits of the United 
States. NoY% this assumed principle, I maintain to 
be altogether without any sanction in the Constitution. 
I declare it to be a manifest and atrocious usurpation 
of power; of a nature dissolving, according to undeni- 
able principles of moral law, the obligations of our 



GROWTH OF iNATlONALlTi'. 113 

national compact, and leading to the awful conse- 
quenceb which flow from such a state of things. 

Touching the general nature of the instrument called 
the Constitution of the United States there is no ob- 
scurity; . . . There can be no doubt about its 
flature. It is a political compact. . . . 

It is, we the people of the United States, for our- 
selves and our posterity; not for the people of Louis- 
iana; nor for the people of New Orleans, or of Canada. 
None of these enter into the scope of the instrument; 
it embraces only "the United States of America." 

Sir, what is this power we propose now to usurp? 
Nothing less than a power changing all the propor- 
tions of the weight and influence possessed by the 
potent sovereignties composing this Union. A stranger 
is to be introduced to an equal share without their 
consent. Upon a principle pretended to be deduced 
from the Constitution, this government, after this bill 
passes, may and will multiply foreign partners in 
j)ower at its own mere notion; at its irresponsible 
])leasure; in other words, as local interests, party pas- 
sions, or ambitious views may suggest. 

"But," the gentleman adds, "what shall we do if we 
flo not admit the people of Louisiana into our Union? 
Our children are settling that country." Sir, it is no 
concern of mine what he does. 

This Constitution never was, and never can be, 
strained to lap over all the wilderness of the West 
without essentially affecting both the rights and con- 
venience of its real proprietors. 

Suppose, then, that it had been distinctly foreseen 
Uiat, in addition to the effect of this weight, the whole 
population of a world beyond the Mississippi was to 
be brought into this and the other branch of the 
l^egislature, to form our laws, control our rights, and 
decide our destiny Sir, can it be pretended that the 
patriots of that day would for one moment have 
listened to it? They were not madmen. They had not 
taken degrees at the hospital of idiocy. 

It was not for these men [people of Louisiana] that 
our fathers fought. It was not for them that this 
Constitution was adopted. You have no authority to 
throw the rights and liberties and properties of this 
people into the "hotch-pot" with the wild men of the 
Missouri, nor with the mi^ed, though more respecta- 



114 AMERICAN HISTOUl' STUDIES. 

ble race of Anglo-Hispano-Gallo-Americans who bask 
on t.he sands in the mouth of the Mississippi. I will 
add only a few words, in relation to the moral and 
political consequences of usurping this power. I Have 
said that it would be a virtual dissolution of the 
Union; and gentlemen express great sensibility at the 
expression. But the true source of terror is not the 
declaration I have made, but the deed you propose. 

New States are intended to be formed beyond the 
Mississippi. There is no limit to men's imaginations 
on this subject, short of California and the Columbia 
River. 

The extension of this principle to the States con- 
templated beyond the Mississippi cannot, will not, and 
ought not to be borne. — American Orations, vol. I, pp. 
180-202. 

The New England states spoke in these words 
jn the Hartford convention of 1814: 

In cases of deliberate, dangerous, and palpable in- 
)'actions of the Constitution, affecting the sovereignty 
jif p. State and liberties of the people, it is not only the 
'ight, but the duty, of such a State to interpose its 
authority for their protection, in the manner best cal- 
culated to secure that end. When emergencies occur 
which are either beyond the reach of the judicial 
A'ibsnals, or too pressing to admit of the delay inci- 
dent to their forms, States which have no common 
Impire must be their own judges, and execute their 
\WTi decisions. It will thus be proper for the several 
states to await the ultimate disposal of the obnoxious 
Voasures recommended 'by the Secretary of War, or 
>euQing before Congress, and so to use their power 
according to the character these measures shall finally 
assume, as effectually to protect their own sovereignty 
and the rights and liberties of their citizens. — Cited in 
Foster on the ('onstittifioii, vol. I, pp. Ill, 118. 

As late as 1844 and 3 845 we find the legis 
lature of Massachusetts using these phrases: 

That the project of annexation of Texas, unless ar- 
-ested on the threshold, may drive these States into a 
dissolution of the Union. — Foster, p. 118. 

As the powers of legislation granted in the Constitu- 
tion of the United States to Congress do not embrace 



(GROWTH OF NATIONALITY. 115 

the case of the admission of a foreign state, or foreign 
iarritory, by legislation, into the Union, such an act of 
admission would have no binding force whatever on 
Ihe people of Massachusetts. — lb., p. 118. 

The legislature of Wisconsin (Republican) 
passed the following in 1859: 

Whereas, The Supreme Court of the United States has 
assumed appellate jurisdiction in the petition of Sher- 
man M. Booth for a writ of habeas corpus presented and 
prosecuted to a final judgment in the Supreme Court of 
this State, and . . . assumed the power to reverse 
■•^at judgment in a matter involving the personal liberty 
of the citizen. . . . 

Resolved, That this assumption . . . is an act of 
undelegated power, and therefore without authority, 
void, and of no force. 

Resolved, That the [national] Government . . . 
was not made exclusive or final judge of the extent of 
ehe powers delegated to itself, but that . . . each 
f state] has an equal right to judge for itself, as well 
of infractions as the mode and measure of redress. 

Resolved, That the principle . . . that the gen- 
eral Government is the exclusive judge of the extent of 
^he powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of des- 
•jotism; since the discretion of those who administer 
the Government, and not the Constitution, would be the 
measure of their powers; that the several States which 
formed that instrument, being sovereign and independ- 
ent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infrac- 
tions; and that a positive defiance of those sovereign- 
ties of all unauthorized acts done under color of that 
instrument is the rightful remedy. — Cited in Tyler's Life 
df Taney, p. SOI. 

But let us listen to Lincoln to hear what he 
has to say on this interesting subject. These 
extracts are from his inaugural, and from his 
first annual message: 

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of 
the Constitution the union of these States is perpetual. 
Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the funda- 
mental law of all national Governments. 

Again, if the United States be not a government 
proper, but an association of States in the nature of 



116 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably 
unmade by less than all parties who make it? One 
party to a contract may violate it, break it, so to 
speak; but does it not require all to lawfully re- 
scind it? 

. . . no State upon its own mere motion can law- 
fully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordi- 
nances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of 
violence within any State or States, against the author- 
ity of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolu 
tionary, according to circumstances. 

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution 
and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the ex- 
tent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitu- 
tion itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of 
the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. 

And this issue embraces more than the fate of the 
United States. It represents to the whole family of man 
the question whether a constitutional republic or democ- 
racy — a government of the people by the same people — 
can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against 
its own domestic foes. 

"Is there in all republics this inherent and fatal 
weakness?" Must a government of necessity be too 
strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak 
to maintain its own existence? 

It might seem, at first thought, to be of little differ- 
ence whether the present movement at the South be 
called "secession" or "rebellion." The movers, how- 
ever, well understand the difference. At the beginning 
they knew they could never raise their treason to any 
respectable magnitude by any name which implies 
violation of law. 

They invented an ingenious sophism which, if con- 
ceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps, through 
all the Incidents, to the complete destruction of the 
Union. The sophism itself is that any state of the 
Union may, consistently with the national constitution, 
and therefore lawfully and peacefully, withdraw from 
the Union without the consent of the Union or of any 
other state. The little disguise that the supposed right 
is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be 
the sole judges of its justice, is too thin to merit any 
notice. 

Having never been States either in substance or Id 



GROWTH OF NATIONALITY. 1 17 

name oulslde of the Union whence this magical om- 
nipotence of "State Riglits," asserting a claim of power 
to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said 
about the "sovereignty" of the States; but the word, 
even, is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is 
believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is 
"sovereignty" in the political sense of the term? 
Would it be far wrong to define it "a political com- 
munity without a political superior?" Tested by this, 
no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a "sov- 
ereignty." 

By conquest or purchase the Union gave each of 
them whatever of independence or liberty it has. The 
Union is older than any of the States, and, in fact, it 
created them as States. Originally some dependent 
colonies made the Union, and in turn, the Union threw 
off their old independence for them, and made them 
States, such as they are. 

What is now combated is the position that secession 
is consistent with the Constitution, — is lawful and 
peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express 
law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law 
which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. 

The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of 
secesiiion. 

The principle itself is one of disintegration, and 
upon which no government can possibly endure. — 
Abraham Lincoln, Works, vol. II, pp. 3-63. 

In 1867, Chief Justice Chase, speaking for the 
Supreme Court in the case of Texas vs. White, 
formuhited this famous description of the Con- 
stitution of the United States: 

The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an 
mdestructible Union, composed of indestructible States, 

QUESTIONS. 

1. "What two views have been held in regard to the 
location of sovereignty? 2. What do you understand 
by sovereignty? 3. What doctrine set forth in the 
Kentucky resolutions? 4. What law did Kentucky 
hold unconstitutional? 5. How did they regard such 
a law? 6. Find out who drafted these rfsoutions. 
7. Could the author of the Kentucky resolutions have 
cited James Wilson to support his views? 8. How 
did Mr. Rawle regard the Constitution? 9. Was Mas- 



118 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

sacnaseus, from 1803 to 1814, national or States 
Rights? 10. Find out the reason for its position. 11. 
Make an analysis of the arguments of Mi. Qaincy. 
12. Find out why he was so opposed to the West. 13. 
How would his views and those of Jefferson Davis in 
1861 agree? 14. What did he mean by a "political com- 
pact"? 15. Was he narrow or broad minded? 16. 
Was he a good speaker? 17. Point out strong pas- 
sages. 18. What view did the Hartford convention 
take? 19. Learn all you can of this convention. 20. 
Point out all the passages you can find that show a 
states right doctrine. 21. Gather all the passages 
which prove the national idea. 22. How do you ex- 
plain the fact that men could differ so greatly? 23. 
Could both have been honest in their beliefs? 24. The 
position of what party surprises you most? 25. Out- 
line Lincoln's arguments. 26. Does he agree with the 
Wisconsin republicans of 1859? 27. Can you find out 
the reason for the change? 28. Commit to memory 
Chase's definition of the Union. 29. Has this study 
made you any more tolerant than you were before? 

30. Write an essay on the doctrine of "implied powers." 

31. Write one on the contest between "states rights" 
and "nationality." 

ACQUISITION OP TERRITORY. 

Some additional light is thrown on the nature 
of the Constitution by adding the opinions of a 
few other men in regard to the right to acquire 
territory. Jefferson, in 1803, said, in speaking 
of the Louisiana purchase: 

This treaty must, of course, be laid before both 
Houses, because both have important functions to ex- 
ercise respecting it. They, I presume, will see their 
duty to their country in ratifying and paying for it, 
so as to secure a good which would otherwise probably 
be never again, in their power. But I suppose they 
must then appeal to the nation for an additional arti- 
cle to the Constitution, approving and confirming an 
act which the nation had not previously authorized. 
The Constitution has made no provision for our hold- 
ing foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign 
nations into our Union. The executive, in seizing the 
fugitive occurrence, 'which so much advances the good 
of our country, has done an act beyond the Constitu- 
tion. The legislature, in casting behind them meta- 
physical subtleties and risking themselves like faith- 
ful servanis, must ratify and pay for It, and throw 



GROWTH OP NATIONALITY. 119 

themselves on their country for doing for them unau- 
thorized what we know they would have done for them- 
selves had they been in a situation to do it. It is the 
case of a guardian, investing the money of his ward 
in purchasing an important adjacent territory; and 
saying to him when of age, I did this for your good; 
I pretend to no right to bind you; you may disavow 
me, and I must get out of the scrape if I can; I 
thought it my duty to risk myself for you. But we 
shall not be disavowed by the nation, and their act of 
indemnity will confirm and not weaken the Constitu- 
tion, by more strongly marked lines. 

Our confederation is certainly confined to the limits 
established by the revolution. The general govern- 
ment has no powers but such as the Constitution has 
given it; and it has not given it a power of holding 
foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into 
the Union. An amendment of the Constitution seems 
necessary for this. In the meantime we must ratify 
and pay our money, as we have treated, for a thing 
beyond the Constitution, and rely on the nation to 
sanction an act done for its great good, without its 
previous authority. — Thomas Jefferson, Writings (ed. 
1895), vol. YIII, 1)1). 262, 512. 

Webster, abl)ut 1830, speaks in these words: 

It was consistent with the Constitution of the United 
States, or thought to be so in Mr. Jefferson's time, to 
attach Louisiana to the United States. A treaty with 
France was made for that purpose. Mr. Jefferson's 
opinion at that moment was, that an alteration of the 
Constitution was necessary to enable it to be done. In 
consequence of considerations to which I need not now 
refer, that opinion was abandoned, and Louisiana was 
admitted by law, without any provision in, or altera- 
tion of, the Constitution. My opinion remains un- 
changed, that it was not within the original scope or 
design of the Constitution to admit new States out of 
foreign eountvy.— Webster, Works, vol. II, p. 551 

QUESTIONS. 

1. How did Jefferson feel in regard to right to buy 
Louisiana? 2. Why, then, did he make the purchase? 

3. Would you expect Webster to take the same view? 

4. How do we regard the right now? 5. How explain 
the change? 



i20 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

ARISTOCRACY VS. DEMOCRACY. 

The aristocratic tendencies of a part of the 
American people at tlie close of the last century 
is well illustrated hj the following extracts from 
Fisher Ames, the most eloquent of the Federal- 
ists. A few quotations from Jefferson to show 
the opposite belief must close this paper. 

AH such men are, or ought to be, agreed, that simple 
governments are despotisms, and of all despotisms a 
democracy, though the least durable, is the most vie 
lent. . . . 

The known propensity of a democracy is to licen- 
tiousness, which the ambitious call, and the ignorant 
believe, to be liberty. 

The great object, then, of political wisdoin in fram- 
ing our Constitution was to guard against licentious- 
ness, that inbred malady of democracies, that deforms 
their infancy with gray hairs and decrepitude. . . . 

The Press, however, has left the understanding of 
the mass of men just where it found it; but, by sup- 
plying an endless stimulus to their imagination and 
passions, it has rendered their temper and habits in- 
finitely worse, it has inspired ienoiance with presump- 
tion, so that those who cannct be •efftvemed by reason 
are no longer awed by authority. . . . 

Wh"^ it has impaired the forc3 that every just gov- 
ernment can employ in self-defency, it has imparted 
to its enemies the result of that v/ildfire, that blazes 
with the most consuming fierceness on attempting to 
quench it . . . 

It is undoubtedly a salutary labour to d!,'?ase among 
the cr;ix^3iis of a free state, as far as the thing is pos- 
sible, V. just knowledge of their pubiick affairs. But 
the diSicnlty of this task is augmented exactly in pro 
portion to the freedom of the state; for the more the 
citizens., ttc bolder and more profligate will be their 
demagogues, the more numerous and eccentrick the 
popular errours, and the more vehement and pertina- 
cious the passions that defend them. 

Yet, as if there were neither vice nor passion in the 
v-crld, one of the loudps^ of our boasts, one of the dear- 
est of all the tenets of our creed is, that we are a sov- 
ereign people — self- governed, — it would be nearer the 



GROWTH OF NATIONALITY. 121 

truth t^ say, self-conceited. For in what sense is It 
true, that any people, however free, are self -governed? 
If they have in fact no government, but such as cono- 
ports with their ever varying and often inordinate de- 
sires, then it is anarchy; if it counteracts those desires, 
it is compulsory. The individual who is left to act 
according to his own humour is not governed at all; 
and if any considerable number, and especially any 
combination of individuals, find or can place them- 
selves in this situation, then the society is no longer 
free. For liberty obviously consists in the salutary 
restraint, and not in the uncontrolled indulgence of 
such humours. 

The republick is a creature of fiction, it is every- 
body in fancy, but nobody in heart. Love, to be any- 
thing, must be select and exclusive. 

A state consisting of a million citizens has a million 
sovei'eigns, each of whom detests all other sovereigns 
but his own. 

Are not the wandering Tartars or Indian hunters at 
least as susceptible of patriotism as these stragglers 
in our Western forests, and infinitely fonder of glory? 
It is difficult to conceive of a country which, from the 
manner of its settlement or the manifest tendencies of 
its politicks, is more destitute or more incapable of 
being inspired with political virtue. 

Its nature ordains that its next change shall be into 
a military despotism, of all known governments, per- 
haps, the most prone to shift its head, and the slowest 
to mend its vices. The reason is that the tyranny of 
what is called the people, and that by the sword, both 
operate alike to debase and corrupt, till there are 
neither men left with the spirit to desire liberty, nor 
morals with the power to sustain justice. Like the 
burning pestilence that destroys the human body, 
nothing can subsist by its dissolution but vermine. — 
Fisher Ames, Works, pp. 382-419. 

Jefferson speaks as follows: 

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of 
the people, the very first object should be to keep that 
right; and were it left to me to decide whether we 
should have a government without newspapers, or 
newspapers without a government, I should not hesi- 
tate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean 



122 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

that every man should receive those papers and b© 
capable of reading them. , . , Among [such socie- 
ties] public opinion is in the place of law, and restrains 
morals as powerfully as law ever did anywhere. . . . 
Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people and keep 
alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their 
errors, but restrain them by enlightening them. If 
once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you 
and .1, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges, and Gov- 
trnors, shall all become wolves." — To Edw. Carrington, 
Jun. 11, 1787. Works, vol. IV (185S ed.J. 

"J. hold It that a little rebellion now and then is a 
good tning, and as necessary in the political world as 
storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, in- 
deed, generally establish the encroachments on the 
rights of the people which have produced them. An 
observation of this truth should re^ider honest repub- 
lican governors so mild in their punishment of rebel- 
lions as not to discourage them too much. It is a 
medicine necessary for the sound health of govern- 
ment."— To Madison, Jan. SO, 1787. Works, vol. IV (1S53 
ed.J. 

QUESTIONS. 

1. How does Ames regard the people? 2. What does 
he expect to become of democracies? 3. How would 
you explain Ins feeling? 4. Compare his ideas with 
those of Jefferson. 5. Did Jefferson fear little insur- 
rections? 6. Why not? 7. Which expressed the best 
doctrines? 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES 

I. 



Begins 1619. Introduced into all the Colonies. 
Quakers begin to oppose, 1696. Both Negroes 
and Indians slaves. Contends with indented 
white servants to about 1675. Rapid increase 
after 1 00. Not profitable on farms of North. 
First active ethical movement against, about 
1770-80. Massachusetts free, 1780; New Hamp- 
shire, 1784. Gradual emancipation provided for 
in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and 
Pennsylvania by 1802. Leading men of Virginia 
its strongest opponents. 



CHAPTER VI 
SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES 



c-^N some respects this has been the most in- 
^ teresting, as, for u time, it was the most 
"" important, question in all American his- 
tory. The great tragedy of the civil war came 
from it. For years before that event the people 
of the north and those of the south were unable 
to understand one another. It may be that they 
did not try as hard as they might, yet the en- 
vironments had become so different from the 
existence of sectional slavery that it was very 
difiScult for the people to see things from the 
same standpoints. 

It will not do to suppose the civil war was 
wholly due to slavery, yet that it furnished the 
main causes I believe history will affirm. 
Neither must we suppose that the contest was 
the outcome of momentary hatred, nor that one 
section can be held wholly responsible for its 
terrible devastation. The factors had been in 
process of formation for more than two hundred 
year&. The whole history of the white race on 
this continent must be studied to understand 
the problem thoroughly. The soil, climate, and 
resulting industries played an important part. 
Perhaps the most important thought for the 
youth of to-day to grasp is that the two sections 
were equally honest in their views. History, I 
believe, will affirm, nay, has affirmed, that those 
who fought for the southern view were wrong, 
and that the north, in this case, stood for pro- 
gress and an advancing civilization. However, 
we should recognize that conditions and cir- 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 125 

cumstances to a great degree determined belief; 
we should do justice to the devotion, the sac- 
rifices, the courage, and the brilliancy with 
which they fought for a mistaken view. It is 
now time to cement the bond of union, to look to 
the future, to study the past for its lessons^ but 
not to taunt nor to condemn. 

In a general way we may note, as it seems to 
me, about four general periods in this history. 
From 1G19 to 1774, the period of planting. Dur- 
ing these years the question was little thought 
about. Very few saw the dangers. It was 
not a political question at all. It can hardly 
be said to have come into the field of ethics, al- 
though a few here and there began to question 
its morality. 

From 1774 to 1S08 there was a marked move- 
ment to put an end to the system. This force 
was strongest under the immediate influence of 
the Revolution, and had almost entirely passed 
away in the south by the end of the period. 
During these years the northern states freed 
themselves, and thus laid the foundation for 
the sectional contest. The almost, if not quite, 
unanimous expression of opinion during the 
earlier, at least, of these years was that slavery 
was an evil which it was hoped might pass 
away. 

The third period extended from 1808 to 1844, 
and was marked by a gradual recognition of the 
fact that there was no chance for the system to 
die out of itself. Gradually there came to be a 
recognition that the supposed interests of the 
two sections, socially, politically, and indus- 
trially were opposed. The north was coming to 
the view more positively that the whole system 
was an evil, and many came to believe it a sin 
for which all must answer, On the other hand, 
the south ceased to be apologists for its exist- 
ence, and finally came to believe almost as one 
man that it was "a good — a pof?itive good." 



126 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

The last period was that of contest. It began 
as a political issue, and ended in a physical 
struggle such as the world had perhaps never 
Been before. During these years scarcely a fact 
in American politics can be mentioned which 
was not more or less involved with the a^estion 
of slavery. 

This brief outline is given, not because it is 
strictly in accordance with the laboratory 
method, but because in the brief extracts which 
I can give not enongh matter can be presented 
to suggest the classification. A study of the 
following extracts may give something of a 
chance to test the truth of the conclusions, but 
they will hardly be full enough to establish their 
correctness. 

The following extracts from the early laws of 
the colonies will give us some idea of the state 
of mind which must have been back of the laws: 

[1652.3 And itt is further ordered by this Courte and 
the authoritje thereof, that all Scotchmen, Negroes, 
and Indjans inhabitting with or servants to the Eng- 
lish, from the age of sixteene to sixty yeares, shall be 
enlisted. . . . — Records of the Colony of Mass. Bay, 
vol. IV, part I, p. S6. 

[1680.] Wm. Seete, Governor: There are but fewe 
servants amongst us, and less slaves, not above 30, as 
we judge, in the Colony. — Colonial Records of Conuccti- 
cutt, 1678-1689, p. 298. 

[1723.] Be it enacted ... if any negro or Indian 
servant or slave shall be found abroad from home, in 
the night season, after nine of the clock, without 
special order from his or their master or mistress, it 
shall be lawful for any person or persons to apprehend 
and secure such negro or Indian servant or slave so 
offending, and him or them bring before the next 
assistant or justice of peace. — Ibid, 1717-1725, p. 390. 

[1681. Proposals for the carrying on of the Negroe's 
Christianity.] Now concerning the Negroe's, . . . 
The first and great step will be to procure . . . 
their Owners consent, as being supposed to be averse 
thereto: not altogether, as is here believed, out of 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 127 

Interest . . . ; but by reason of the trouble, and 
the fancied needlessness of the Work; and to prevent 
all danger from their slaves being furnishf with 
knowledge, consequent, they conceive thereto.-^'^art, 
American History Told by Contemporaries, vol. I, p. 299. 

. . . Be it hereby further Declared and Enacted, 
by and with the Authority, Advice, and Consent afore- 
said, That no Negro or Negroes, by receiving the Holy 
Sacrament of Baptism, is thereby manumitted or set 
free, nor hath any Right or Title to Freedom or Manu- 
mission, more than he or they had before; any Law, 
Usage, or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding. — 
Hening's Statutes of Virginia, 1715, ch. 4i, sec. 24. 

Be it further Enacted, . . . That for every Negro 
imported into this Province, either by Land or 
Water, the Importer or Importers of such Negro or 
Negroes shall pay unto the said Naval Officer afore- 
said, the Sum of Twenty Shillings Sterling per Poll 
. . .—Ibid, 1715, ch. S6, sec. 8. 

Be it therefore Enacted, . . . , That from and 
after the End of this present Session of Assembly, No 
Negro, or Mulatto Slave, Free Negro, or Mulatto born 
of a White Woman, during his Time of Servitude by 
Law, or any Indian Slave, or Free Indian Natives of 
this or the neighboring Provinces, be admitted and 
received as good and valid Evidence in Law, in any 
Matter or Thing whatsoever, .... wherein any 
Christian White Person is concerned. — Ibid, 1717, ch. 
13, sec. 2. 

[1765.] Be it Enacted, . . . , That the Justices of 
the several and respective County Courts within this 
Province, be, and they are hereby impowered and re- 
quired, . . . , to appoint the Constable of every 
Hundred, where the said Justices, at their Discretion, 
shall think proper and expedient, to suppress the As- 
sembling and tumultuous Meeting of Negroes and other 
Slaves; . . . — Hening, Statutes of Virginia. 

[1725.] XL And be It enacted by the Authority 
aforesaid, That no Master or Mistress of any Negroe 
shall hereafter, for any Reward, Sum or Sums of 
Money, stipulated and agreed upon betwixt them, or 
upon any Pretence whatsoever, permit or suffer his or 
their Negroes to ramble about, under Pretence of get- 
ting Work, nor give Liberty to their Negroes to seek 



128 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

their own Employ, and so go to work at their own 
Wills, under the Penalty of Twenty Shillings for every 
such Offence. — Acts of Pennsylvania. 

[1792.] V. No negro or mulatto shall be a witness, 
except in pleas of the Commonwealth against negroes 
or mulattoes, or in civil pleas, where negroes or mulat- 
toes alone shall be parties. 

VI. No slave shall go from the tenements of his mas- 
ter or other person with whom he lives, without a pass, 
or some letter or token, whereby it may appear that he 
is proceeding by authority from his master, employer, 
or overseer. . . . 

XI. Riots, routs, unlawful assemblies, trespasses and 
seditious speeches by a slave or slaves, shall be pun- 
ished by stripes . . . — Acts of the General Assembly of 
Pennsylvania, Printed by A. Davis, 179Jt, pp. 196, 197. 

[1793.] II. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, 
That from and after the passing of this act, every free 
negro or mulatto, who resides in, or is employed to 
labour within the limits of any city, borough, or town, 
shall be registered and numbered in a book to be kept 
for that purpose by the clerk of the said city, borough, 
or town, which register shall specify his or her age, 
name, colour and stature, by whom, and in what court 
the said negro or mulatto was emancipated, or that 
such negro or mulatto was born free. — Ibid, p. 327. 

[1687, New York.] . . . This I observe that they 
take no care of the conversion of their Slaves. — Hart, 
vol. I, p. SJ/S. 

[1650, New York.] There are, also, various other 
negroes in this country, some of whom have been 
made free for their long service, but their children have 
remained slaves, though it is contrary to the laws of 
every people that anyone bom of a Christian mother 
Rhould be a slave -^nd be compelled to remain in servi- 
tude. — Ibid, p. 535. 

[Rev. John McDowell said in 1762 concerning North 
Carolina]: We have but few families in this parish, 
but of the best in the province, viz., His Excellency the 
Governor, His Honor the President, some of the honor- 
able Council, Col. Dry, the Collector, and about .^0 
other good families, who have each of them great 
gangs of slaves. We have in all about 200 families. — 
Cited in J. H. U. Studies, 1S96, p. 193. 



SLA^ ERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 12!) 

Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute 
power and authority over negro slaves of what opin- 
ion and religion whatsoever. — Ibid, p. 27. 

Be it further enacted. That if any master, or owner 
of negroes, or slaves, or any other person or persons 
whatsoever in the government shall permit or suffer 
any negro or negroes to build on their or either of 
their lands or any part thereof any house under pre- 
tense of a meeting house upon account of worship or 
upon any pretense whatsoever, and shall not suppress 
and hinder them, he, she, or they so offending shall 
for every default forfeit or pay fifty pounds, one-half 
towards defraying the contingent charges of the gov- 
ernment, the other to him or them that shall sue for 
the same.— Ibil, p. 50. 

That there were those during these years who 
held different views from those manifested in 
these laws may be seen from the following ex- 
tracts. Jonathan Edwards the younger said: 

"To hold a man in a state of slavery, is to be, every 
day, guilty of robbing him of his liberty, or of man 
stealing." — Cited in Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, 
p. 28. 

The town meeting of Danbury, Connecticut, 
in 1774, passed the following resolution: 

"We cannot but think it a palpable absurdity so 
loudly to complain of attempts to Enslave us while we 
are actually Enslaving others." — American Archives, 
vol. I, p. 1038. 

The Friends, in their annual meetings, give 
us their views in the following resolutions: 

[1696, Advised the members to] be careful not to 
encourage the bringing in of any more negroes, and 
that those who have negroes be careful of them, bring 
them to meetings, have meetings with them in their 
families, restrain them from loose and lewd living, as 
much as in them lies, and from rambling abroad, on 
First days or other times. 

[1774.] All members concerned in Importing, sell- 
ing, purchasing, giving or transferring negroes or 



130 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

other slaves, or otherwise acting in such a manner as 
to- continue them in slavery beyond the term limited 
by law or custom [for whites] was directed to be ex- 
cluded fr. membership or disowned. 

[1776.] It was enacted by thCr same meeting That 
the owners of slaves, who refuse<j to execute proper in- 
struments for giving them their freedom, were to be 
disowned likewise. — Ooodell, pp. S5, 36. 

In the Virginia convention of 1774 to choose 
delegates to the Philadelphia convention, Jeffer- 
son laid before it an exposition of the rights of 
British America. A part was as follows: 

The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object 
of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily 
introduced in their infant state. But previous to the 
enfranchisement of the slaves, it is necessary to ex- 
clude all further importations from Africa; Yet our 
repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and 
by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibi- 
tion, have been hitherto defeated by his Majesty's 
negative; Thus preferring the immediate advantage 
of a few African [British] corsairs, to the lasting in- 
terests of the American States, and to the rights of 
human nature deeply wounded by this infamous prac- 
tice. — Jefferson, Works, vol. I (Ford), p. PtO. 

The convention actually 

Resolved, We will neither ourselves import nor pur- 
chase any slave or slaves imported by any other per- 
son after the 1st day of November next [1774], either 
from Africa, the W. Indies, or any other place. —76., p. 
687. 

The North Carolina Provincial Convention of 
the same year 

Resolved, That we v/ill not import any slave or 
slaves, or purchase any slave or slaves imported or 
brought into the province by others, from any part 
of the world after the first day of Nov. next. — Tb., p. 
735. 

The first General Congress, in 1774, passed the 
following Articles of Association: 

We do, for ourselves and the inhabitants of the sev- 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 131 

eral Colonies whom we represent, firmly agree and 
associate, as follows: . . . 

2. We will neither import nor purchase, any slave 
imported after the first day of December next; after 
which time, we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, 
and v/ill neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor wili 
we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manu- 
factures, to those who are concerned in it. 

11. That a committee be chosen in every county, 
city, and town, by those who are qualified to vote for 
representatives in the legislature, whose business it 
shall be attentively to observe the conduct of all per- 
sons touching this association; and when it shall be 
made to appear, to the satisfaction of a majority of 
any such committee, that any person within the limits 
of their appointment has violated this association, that 
such majority do forthwith cause the truth of the case 
to be published in the gazette; to the end, that all such 
foes to the rights of British-America may be publicly 
known and universally contemned as the enemies of 
American liberty; and thenceforth we respectively will 
break off all dealings with him or her. 

14. And we do further agree and resolve that we 
will have no trade, commerce, dealings or interc<)urse 
whatsoever, with any colony or province, in N. Amer., 
which shall not accede to or who shall hereafter vio- 
late this association, but will hold them as unworthy 
of the rights of freemen and as inimical to the liber- 
ties of this country. — Journal of Congress, vol. I, 23 f. 

The representatives of the Darien district, in 
Georgia, in 1775, resolved: 

"To show the world that we are not influenced by 
any contracted or interested motives, but a general 
philanthropy for all mankind, of whatever climate, 
language, or complexion, we hereby declare our dis- 
approbation and abhorrence of the unnatural practice 
of slavery in America (however the uncultivated state 
of our country, or other specious arguments may plead 
for it,) a practice founded in injustice and cruelty, 
and highly dangerous to our liberties (as well as lives.) 



132 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

debasing part of our fellow-creatures below men, and 
corrupting the virtue and morals of rest, and is laying 
the basis of that liberty we contend for, (and which 
we pray the Almighty to continue to the latest pos- 
terity,) upon a very wrong foundation. We, there- 
fore, Resolve, at all times to use our utmost endeavors 
for the manumission of our slaves in this colony, upon 
the most safe and equitable footing for the master and 
themselves." — Am. Ai'chives, vol. I, p. 1136. 

The Declaration of Independence as originally 
drafted contained the following clause: 

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, 
violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the 
persons of a distant people who never offended him, 
captivating & carrying them into slavery in another 
hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their trans- 
portation thither, this piratical warfare, the oppro" 
brium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian 
king of Great Britain determined to keep open a mar- 
ket where MEN should be bought & sold he has prosti- 
tuted his negative for suppressing every legislative 
attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable com- 
merce: and that this assemblage of horrors might 
want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting 
those very people to rise in arms among us, and to 
purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, 
by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded 
them: thus paying off former crimes committed 
against the liberties of one people, with crimes which 
he urges them to commit against the lives of another. 
— Jefferson, Worlcs, vol. II (Ford), p. 51, Facsimile. 

Jefferson's draft of the Ordinance of 1784 for 
the government of the territories of the United 
States contained this clause in relation to slav- 
ery: 

After the year 1800 of the Christian era there shall 
be neither slavery nor involuntary Servitude in any 
of the said States, otherwise than in punishment of 
crimes whereof the party shall have been convicted 
to be personally guilty. 

The Ordinance of 1787, which provided for the 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 133 

government of the northwest territory, had this 
provision in regard to the subject under con- 
sideration: 

Art. VI. There shall be neither slavery nor involun- 
tary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in 
punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have 
been duly convicted; . . . 

Jefferson, in his ''Notes on Virginia," in 
1782, discusses the subject as follows: 

"There must doublless be an unhappy influence on 
the manners of our people produced by the existence 
of slavery among us. The whole commerce between 
master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most 
boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism, 
on the one part, and degrading submissions on the 
other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; 
for man is an imitative animal. ... If a parent 
could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his 
self-love for restraining the intemperance of passion 
towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one 
that his child is present. But generally it is not suf- 
ficient The parent storms, the child looks on, catches 
the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the 
circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to the worst of 
passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily ex- 
ercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it 
with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy 
who can retain his manners and morals imdepraved 
by such circumstances. And with what execration 
should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting one- 
half of the citizens thus to trample on the rights of 
the other, transforms those into despots, and these 
into enemies, destroys the morals of the one and the 
amor pair ice of the other! . . With the morals 
of the people their industry also is destroyed. . . , 
And can the liberties of a nation be '.bought secure, 
when we have removed their only firm basis, a con- 
viction in the minds of the people that these liberties 
are of the gift of God? That they are not to be vio- 
lated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my 
country when I reflect that God is just; that His jus- 
tice cannot sleep forever; that considering numbers. 



134 AMKRIOAN HISTORY STUDIES. i ' ' 

nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the 
wheel of Fortune, an exchange of situation, is among 
possible events; that it may become probable by 
supernatural interference! The Almighty has no at- 
tribute which can take side with us in such a contest." 
—Works, vol. Ill (Ford), pp. 266-7. 

The following letters from Jefferson will show 
how he felt in regard to the institution of slav- 
ery: 

To Dr. Price, encouraging him and praising 
the spirit of a pamphlet against slavery, 1785: 

Southward of the Chesapeak it will find but few 
readers concurring with it in sentiment on the sub- 
ject of slavery. From the mouth to the head of the 
Chesapeak, the bulk of the people will approve it in 
theory, and it will find a reputable minority ready to 
accept it in practice, a minority which for weight and 
worth of character preponderates against the greatest 
number, who have not the courage to divest their 
families of a property which however keeps their con- 
science unquiet. Northward of the Chesapeak you 
may find here and there an opponent to your doctrine 
or you may find here and there a robber and a mur- 
derer, but in no greater number. ... In a few 
years there will be no slaves Northward of Maryland. 
In Maryland I do not find such a disposition to begin 
the redress of this enormity as in Virginia. This is 
the next state to which we may turn our eyes for the 
interesting spectacle of justice in confiict with avarice 
and oppression. — Works, vol. IV (Ford), pp. 82-3. 

To M. DE Meustier, January 24, 1786: 
I conjecture there are 650,000 negroes in the 5 South- 
ernmost states, and not 50,000 in the rest. In most of 
these latter effectual measures have been taken for 
their future emancipation. In the former, nothing is 
done toward that. The disposition to emancipate them 
is strongest in Virginia. Those who desire it, form, 
as yet, the minority of the whole state, but it bears a 
respectable proportion to the whole in numbers ano 
weight of character, and is continually recruiting h 
the addition of nearly the whole of the young men 
as fast as they come into public life. I flatter myself 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 135 

it will take place there at some period of time not very 
distant. In Maryland and N. Carolina a very few are 
disposed to emancipate. In S. Carolina and Georgia 
not the smallest symptoms of it, but, on the contrary 
these 2 states and N. Carolina continue importations 
of negroes. — Ibid, pp. lJf5-6. 

To M. DB Meustier, 1786 : 

What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible ma- 
chine! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, impris- 
onment and death itself in vindication of his own lib- 
erty, and the next moment be deaf to all those 
motives whose power supported him thro' his trial, and 
inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which 
is fraught with more misery than ages of that which 
he rose in rebellion to oppose. But we must await 
with patience the workings of an overruling provi- 
dence. I hope that that is preparing the deliverance 
of these, our suffering brethren. When the measure 
of their tears shall be full, when their groans shall 
have involved heaven itself in darkness, doubtless a 
God of justice will awaken to their distress, and by 
diffusing light and liberality among their oppressors, 
or at length by his exterminating thunder, manifest 
his attention to the things of this world, and that they 
are not left to the guidance of a blind fatality."— /bid, 
p. 185. 

To St. George Tucker, August 28, 1797, 

[subscribes to emancipation], and to the mode of 
emancipation, I am satisfied that that must be a mat- 
ter of compromise between the passions, the preju- 
dices, and the real difficulties which will each have 
their weight in that operation. Perhaps the first chap- 
ter of this history, which has begun in St. Domingo 
. . . may prepare our minds for a peaceable ac- 
comodation between justice, policy and necessity; and 
furnish an answer to the difllcult question, whither 
shall the colored emigrants go? and the sooner we 
put some plan underway, the greater hope there is 
that it may be permitted to proceed peaceably to it's 
ultimate effect. But if something is not done and soon 
done, we shall be the murderers of our own children. — 
Ibid, vol, VII. pp. 167-8. 



136 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

To Edward Coles, 1814: 

[His views] have long since been in possession of 
the public, and time has only served to give them 
stronger proof. The love of justice and the love of 
country plead equally the cause of these people, and 
it is a mortal reproach to us that they should have 
pleaded so long in vain. . . . The hour of emanci- 
pation is advancing in the march of time. It will come 
and whether brought on by the generous energy of 
our own minds or by the bloody process of St. Do- 
mingo ... is a leaf in our history not yet turned 
over. ... I have seen no proposition so expedient, 
on the whole, as that of emancipation of those born 
after a given day. . . . This enterprise . . . 
shall have all my prayers. 

Washington speaks in no uncertain words in 
regard to his desires and intentions: 
To RoBT. Morris, April 12, 1786: 

I can only say that there is not a man living who 
wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted 
for the abolition of it [slavery]; but there is only one 
proper and effectual mode in which it can be accom- 
plished, and that is by legislative authority; and this, 
so far as my suffrage will go, shall never be wanting. — 
Works, vol. IX (Sparks), p. 15S. 

To John F. Merger, September 9, 1786 : 

I never mean, unless some particular circumstances 
should compel me to it, to possess another slave by 
purchase, it being among my first wishes to see some 
plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be 
abolished by law. — Ih., p. — . 

Washington, by his will, freed all his slaves. 
William Pinckney, in Maryland House of 
Delegates, 1789, says: 

Iniquitous and most dishonorable to Maryland, is 
that dreary system of partial bondage which her laws 
have hitherto supported with a solicitude worthy of 
a better object and her citizens, by their practice, 
countenanced. Founded in a disgraceful traffic, to 
which the present country lent its fostering aid, from 



SLAVERY IN THB UNItEt) STATES. 137 

motives of interest, but which even she would have dis- 
dained to encourage, had England been the destined 
mart of such inhuman merchandize, its continuance is 
as shameful as its origin. — Elliot's Debates, vol. — , p. — . 

John Jay says: 

Till America comes into this measure [abolitionj 
her progress to Heaven will be impious. This is a 
strong expression but it is just. I believe that God 
is just, and I believe it to be a maxim in His, as in 
other courts, that those who ask equity ought to do it 
— Letter from Spain, 17S0, Goodell, p. 30. 

THE SLAVE COMPROMISES IN THE CONSTITUTION. 

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be appor- 
tioned among the several States which may be in- 
cluded within this Union, according to their respective 
numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the 
whole Number of free Persons, including those bound 
to Service for a Term of Years, . . . three-fifth 
of all other Persons. — The Constitution, art. I, sec. 2, 
el. 3. 

On the above article of the Constitution a long- 
debate took place in the Constitutional Conven- 
tion, Various opinions in regard to Its merits 
were expressed by the members of the conven- 
tion. The following extracts will well illustrate 
the general trend of the debate. 

GEBR-k (Mass.): Why should the blacks, who were 
property in the South, be in the rule of representation 
more than the cattle and horses in the North? 

PiNCKNEY (S. C): . . . He thought the blacks 
ought to stand on an equality with the whites; but 
would agree to the ratio settled by Congress. 

Butler (S. C.) insisted that the labor of a slave in 
South Carolina was as productive and valuable as that 
of a free man in Massachusetts; that as wealth was the 
great means of defence and utility to the nation, they 
were equally valuable to "it with freemen; and that 
consequently an equal representation ought to be al- 
lowed for them in a government which was instituted 
principally for the protection of property, and was 
itself to be supported by property. 

10 



138 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

Wilson (Pa.) did not well see on what principle the 
admission of blacks in the proportion of three-fifthg 
could be explained. Are they admitted as citizens — 
then why not admitted on an equality with white 
citizens? Are they admitted as property — then why 
not all other property? . . . 

Randolph (Va.) : He urged strenuously that express 
security ought to be provided for including slaves in 
the ratio of representation. He lamented that such a 
species of property existed. But as it did exist, the 
holders of it would require this security. It was per- 
ceived that the design was entertained by some of ex- 
cluding slaves altogether; the Legislature therefore 
ought not to be left at liberty. 

PiNCKNEY (S. C.) reminded the committee that if the 
convention should fail to insert some security to the 
Southern States against an emancipation of slaves, 
. . . he should be bound by duty to his state to vote 
against their report. 

RoGEK Sherman (Conn.) did not regard the admis- 
sion of the negroes into the ratio of representation, as 
liable to such insuperable objections. It was the free- 
men of the Southern States who were, in fact, to be 
represented according to the taxes paid by them, and 
the negroes are only included in the estimate of the 
taxes. . . . — The Madison Papers, pp. I4S, S02, 324, 
S32, S36. 4I8, 480. 

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as 
any of the States now existing shall think proper to 
admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior 
to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but 
a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, 
not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. — The Con- 
stitution, art. I, sec. 9, cl. 1. 

On this clause again a long debate ensued: 

RuTLEDGE (S. C): . . , Religion and humanity 
had nothing to do with this question. Interest alone ia 
the governing principle with nations. The true ques- 
tion at present is, whether the Southern States shall 
or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern 
States consult their interest, they will not oppose the 
increase of Slaves, which will increase the commodi* 
ties of which they will have become the carriers. 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 139 

Ellsworth (Conn.) was for leaving the clause as it 
stands. Let every State import what it pleases. The 
morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations be- 
longing to the States themselves. What enriches a 
part enriches the whole, and the States are the best 
Judges of their particular interests. 

PiNCKNEY (S. C): South Carolina can never receive 
tile plan if it prohibits the slave trade. 

SiiEiaiAN (Conn.): He disapproved of the slave 
trade, yet as the States were now possessed of the 
right to import slaves, and as the public good did not 
require it to be taken from them ... he thought 
it best to leave the matter as we find it. He observed 
that the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in 
the United States, and that the good sense of the sev- 
eral States would probably by degrees complete it, . . 

Mason (Va.) : This infamous traffic originated in 
the avarice of British merchants. . . . The evil of 
having slaves was experienced during the late war, 
. . . Maryland and Virginia had already prohibited 
the importation of slaves. . . . All this would be 
in vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to 
import. . . . The Western people are already call- 
ing out for slaves for their new lands; and will fill 
that country with slaves, if they can be got through 
South Carolina a,nd Georgia. . . . 

Baldwin (Ga.) : . . . Georgia could not give up 
this one of her favorite prerogatives. If left to herself 
she may probably put a stop to the evil. . . . 

Williamson (N. C): . . He thought the Southern 
States could not be members of the Union if the clause 
should be rejected. 

King (Mass.): If Southern States would not con- 
federate with the tax on slaves imported, so he thought 
Northern would not if this clause- were omitted. 

RuTLEDGE (S. C): If the convention thinks North 
Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia will ever agree 
to the plan, unless their right to import be untouched, 
the expectation is vain. The people of those States 
will never be such fools as to give up so important an 
interest. 

Madison (Va.): Twenty years will produce all the 
mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to 
import slaves. So long a time will be more dishonarsb' 



140 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

ble to tlie American character than to say nothing 
about it in the constitution. . . . 

He thought it wrong to admit in the constitution the 
idea that there could be property in men. — The Madison 
Papers, pp. 577, 57S, 581, 582, 60S, 610. 

A few extracts from sijeeches made in the 
State conventions to consider the adoption of 
the constitution throw still more light on the 
views prevailing at the time. 

Jas. Wilson (Pa.): 

I consider this clause as laying the foundation for 
banishing slavery out of this country; and though the 
period is more distant than I could wish it, it will pro- 
duce the same kind, gradual change as was produced 
in Pennsylvania. . . . The new States which are to 
be formed will be under the control of Congress in this 
particular, and slavery will never be introduced 
among them. — Elliot's Debates, vol. II, p. ^52. 

Gen. Heath (Mass.) : 

The migration or importation, etc., is confined to 
the States now existing only; new States cannot claim 
it. Congress by their ordinance for erecting new 
States some time since, declared that the new States 
shall be republican, and that there shall be no slavery 
in them. — Ih., vol. II, p. 115. 

Johnson (Va.): 

They tell us they see a progressive danger of bring- 
ing about emancipation. The principle has begun 
since the Revolution. Let us do what we will, it will 
come round. Slavery has been the foundation of much 
of that rapacity and dissipation which have been so 
much disseminated among our countrymen. If it were 
totally abolished, it would do much good. — lb., vol. Ill, 
pp. 6-48. 

GovR. Randolph (Va.): 

I hope there are none here who, . . . will ad- 
vance an objection dishonorable to Virginia, that, at 
the moment they are receiving the rights of their citi- 
zens, there is a spark of hope that those unfortunate 
men now held in bondage may, by the operation of the 
general government, be made free. — 7b., vol. Ill, p. 598. 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 141 

Patrick Henry (Va.) 
[argued for] the power of Congress ... to abol- 
ish slavery in the States. Another thing will con- 
tribute to bring this event about. Slavery is detested. 
We feel its effects. We deplore it with all the pity of 
humanity. — Zfe. vol. Ill, p. ^63. 

On the presentation of the Quaker memorial 
on slave trade to the House of Representatives, 
March, 1790, Jackson (Ga.), said: 

The situation of the slaves here, their situation in 
their native states, and the disposal of them in case 
of emancipation, should be considered. That slavery 
was an evil habit he did not mean to controvert; but 
that habit was already established, and there were 
peculiar situations in countries which rendered that 
habit necessary. Such situations the states of South 
Carolina and Georgia were in: large tracts of the most 
fertile lands on the continent remained uncultivated 
for the want of population. It was frequently ad- 
vanced on the floor of Congress how unhealthy those 
climates were, and how impossible it was for northern 
constitutions to exist there. What, he asked, is to 
be done with this uncultivated territory? Is it to re- 
main a waste? Is the rice trade to be banished from 
our coasts? Are Congress willing to deprive them- 
selves of the revenue arising from that trade, and which 
is daily increasing, and to throw this great advantage 
in the hands of other countries? . . . — Annals, vol. 
II, pp. 1191-1205. 

Eight years later the territory of Mississippi 
was organized. On motion to strike out the 
clause protecting slavery in the territory, Mr. 
Harper (S. C), said: 

In the Northwest Territory the regulation forbidding 
slavery was a very proper one, as the people inhabiting 
that part of the country were from parts where slavery 
did not prevail, and they had of course no slaves 
amongst them; but in the Miss. Territory . . that 
species of property already exists, and persons emigrat- 
ing there from the Southern States would carry with 
them property of this kind. To agree to such a propo- 



142 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

sition would, therefore, be a decree of banishment to 
all the persons settled there and of exclusion to all 
those intending to go there ... it struck at the 
habits and customs of the people. — Berton's Debates, 
vol. II, V' 221 f. 

Mr. Varnum (Mass.) 

thought the high-price of lands in the N. W. Terri- 
tory was due to the absence of slavery "and if the 
Southern States could get clear of their slaves, the 
price of their land would immediately rise." — lb., p. 
221 f. 

Mr Giles (Va.) 

thought that if the slaves of the Southern States were 
permitted to go into this Western country, by lessen- 
ing the number in those States, and spreading them 
over a large surface of country there would be a greater 
probability of ameliorating their condition. — lb., p. 
221 f. 

At the time of the organization of Arkansas 
as a territory, in 1819, a long and bitter debate 
took place. These extracts show the spirit: 

Walker (N. C): 

Shall they [the South] be proscribed and prohibited 
from taking their slaves? Sir, if so, your land will be 
an uncultivated waste — a fruitless soil; it is further 
south than the 35th degree of latitude, a low and warm 
country, that will not support a laboring white popula- 
tion. 

Slavery is an evil we have long deplored but cannot 
cure; it was entailed upon us by our ancestors; it was 
not our original sin, and we cannot, in our present 
situation, release ourselves from the embarrassment; 
and, as it is an evil, the more diffusive, the lighter it 
will be felt, and the wider it is extended the more equal 
the proportion of inconvenience. — Annals, vol. XXXIV, 
p. 1226. 

McLane (Delaware): 

The fixing of a line on the West of the Miss., north 
pf which slavery should not be tolerated had always 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 143 

been with him a favorite policy, and he hoped the day 
was not distant when upon principles of fair compro- 
mise it might constitutionally be effected. 

If we meet upon principles of reciprocity we cannot 
fail to do justice to all. It has already been avowed 
by gentlemen . . . from the South and the West 
that they will agree upon a line which shall divide the 
Blaveholding from the non-slaveholding states. It is 
this proposition I am anxious to effect; but I wish to 
effect it by some compact which shall be binding upon 
all parties, and all subsequent legislatures; which can- 
not be changed and will not fluctuate with the diver- 
sity of feeling and of sentiment to which this Empire 
in its course must be destined. — lb., p, 1227 f. 

The Missouri question, and line of 36° 30', 
1819-'21. 

Reid (Ga.): 

Slaver^" is "an unnatural state; a dark cloud which 
obscures half the lustre of our free institutions! But 
it is a fixed evil which we can only alleviate. Are we 
called upon to emancipate our slaves? I answer, their 
welfare — the safety of our citizens, forbid it." — Annals, 
vol. XXXV, p. 1024. 

If you remain inexorable; if you persist in refusing 
the humble, the decent, the reasonable prayer of Mis- 
souri, is there no danger that her resistance will rise 
in proportion to your oppression? Sir, the firebrand, 
which is even now cast into your society will require 
blood — ay; and the blood of freemen — for its quench- 
ing. Your Union shall tremble as under the force of 
an earthquake. — 76., p. 1033. 

Barbour (Va.): 

I am not easily alarmed, nor am I disposed to be an 
alarmist; but this I will say, that I fear this subject 
will be an ignited spark, which, communicated to an 
immense mass of combustion, will produce an explosion 
that will shake this Union to its center. This por- 
tentious subject, twelve months ago, was a little spark 
Bcarcely visible above the horizon; it has already over- 
cast the heavens, obscuring every other object. — lb., p. 
107. 



144 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

Whitman (Mass.): 

In the degree in which you increase the proportion 
of the free beyond that of the slave population, in the 
same ratio you increase the chance for emancipation, 
final and total. . . . The best mode, ... to 
promote the cause of a final emancipation would be 
to suffer the slaves to be scattered thinly over the 
western States. The permission of slavery in the 
Territory of Arkansas will afford no additional facili- 
ties to the introduction of this unfortunate race 
from abroad. The natural increase will be the same 
whether in one part of the Union or t&e other; or if 
it would be greater in the Western country, it would 
be the consequence of an ameliorated condition and 
therefore not to be regretted. — Annals, vol. XXXIV, pp. 
1274-5. 

Why may we not continue in this way, admitting 
states off against the non-slaveholding states westerly, 
with the restriction, and off against the slaveholding 
States without it? True, sectional lines are to be ab- 
horred: But we have them in relation to this subject 
already. The line [of the Ohio] is distinctly marked. 
. . . Having so begun we must continue on. — lb., p. 
1278. 

Jefferson writes: 

[1820.] The coincidence of a marked principle, moral 
and political, with geographical lines, once conceived, 
I feared would never more be obliterated from the 
mind; that it would be recurring on every occasion 
and renewing irritations, until it would kindle such 
mutual and mortal hatred as to render separation 
preferable to eternal discord. I have been among the 
most sanguine in believing that our Union would be 
of long duration. I now doubt it much. — Jefferson, 
Works, vol. VII (Washington ed.J, p. 158. 

QUESTIONS. 

1. Were negroes subject to military service? 2. 
What does this imply in regard to their position? 
3. Were there, many negroes in the north? 4. Why 
the law against the negroes being abroad at night? 
5. How long had they been away from Africa at this 
time? 6. Why did they question whether the negro 



8LAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 145 

should be Christianized? 7. How did they settle the 
matter? 8. How about their right to testify? 9. Why 
do you suppose such a law was passed? 10. Why the 
acts against assembling of negroes? 11. Make a list 
of the states that had harsh laws against the negro. 
12. Why such laws? 13. Who first began to oppose 
slavery? 14. What reasons given? 15. Write an essay 
on the subject of slavery in the colonies. 16. What 
change of tone at the beginning of the Revolution? 
17. From what section does the greatest opposition 
come? 18. How do you explain the change? 19. Who 
did they blame for the slave trade? 20. Did they stop 
it? 21. How were they going to try to stop it? 22. 
How did Jefferson feel on the subject? 23. Collect all 
the thoughts you can from Jefferson on the subject. 
24. In 1785 how, according to Jefferson, was slavery 
regarded north of the Potomac? 25. How did the 
leaders in Virginia feel about emancipation? 26. Did 
Jefferson predict truthfully in regard to future? 27. 
Make an outline to show the views, plans, and predic- 
tions of Jefferson. 28. What other men opposed? 29. 
What were their arguments? 30. What do you believe 
to be the cause of such a radical revolution in thought? 
31. Name the compromises in the constitution. 32. 
Give their terms. 33. Any change in tone in discus- 
sion from that of writings just quoted? 34. What 
does the change mean? 35. What section is strongest 
against slavery and the slave trade? 36. Write an 
essay on slavery in the constitution, including therein 
the debates. 37. Trace the character of the arguments 
in congress. 38. Gather all the moral arguments you 
can. 39. Do both sides use them? 40. Note all the 
industrial points in the arguments. 41. Which side 
uses such arguments most effectively? 42. What is 
the political argument? 43. Compare the feeling of 
1775 and that of 1820. 44. Mark all the changes. 45. 
Which section has changed most? 46. What predic- 
tions do Adams and Jefferson make about 1820? 47. 
What is their argument? 48. Did they prove to be cor- 
rect? 49. Jefferson's thought on compromise of 1820? 
50. Write essay oa whole subject. 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES 

II. 



Abolitionists arise about 1830. William Lloyd 
Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Sumner, among 
leaders. Abolition societies 1832-40 strongest. 
Enter national politics, 1840. Struggle over 
"incendiary" mail matter, 1835-37; Riglit of 
petition, 1836-44; Annexation of Texas, 1843-45; 
control of territories, 1820, 1846-50, 1854. Com- 
promises, 1820, 1833,1850. " Wilmot Proviso" 
issue, 1846^8. Kansas - Nebraska bill, 1854. 
Dred Scott decision, 1857. Election of Lincoln 
against slave extension, 1860. Secession, 1860- 
61. War, 1861-65. 



CHAPTER VII 
SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES 

(5V ^^* 

c^ FOUND it utterly impossible to handle tne 
'^ subject of slavery in a satisfactory manner 

\ in one article; and it must be confessed 
that two numbers even do hardly more than 
touch the abundance of interesting and valu- 
able matter that lies at hand. 

In the last number we had just reached the 
moment when this question began to absorb a 
large part of the thought of the American peo- 
ple. This article begins with the struggle over 
the "Incendiary Publications" and the "Right 
of Petition," of which J. Q. Adams was the hero, 
and ends with the inauguration of Lincoln. 

The next number will deal with the Civil War 
and Reconstruction. 

J. Q. Adams writes, 1820: 

Slavery is the great and foul stain upon the North, 
American Union, and it is a contemplation worthy of 
the most exalted soul whether its total abolition is or 
is not practicable: if practicable by what means it 
may be effected, and if a choice of means be within the 
scope of the object, what means would accomplish it at 
the smallest cost of human suffering. A dissolutioa, 
at least temporary, of the Union, as now constituted, 
would be certainly necessary, and the dissolution must 
be upon a point involving the question of slavery, and 
no other. The Union might then be organized on the 
fundamental principle of emancipation. The object is 
vast in its compass, awful in its prospects, sublime and 
beautiful in its issue, a life devoted to it would be nobly 
epent or sacrificed. — J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, vol. IV, p. 
631. 
> It slavery be the destined sword in the hand of thg 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 149 

destroying angel which is to sever the ties of thia 
Union, the same sword will cut in sunder the bonds of 
slavery itself. A dissolution of the Union for the cause 
of slavery would be followed by a servile war in the 
slave-holding States combined with a war between the 
two severed portions of the Union. It seems to me 
that its result must be the exterpation of slavery from 
this whole continent; and, calamitous and desolating 
as this course of events in its progress must be, so 
glorious woul-d be its final issue, that as God shall judge 
me, I do not say that it is not to be desired. 
' Never since human sentiments and human conduct 
were influenced by human speech was there a theme for 
eloquence like the free side of this question. . . . 
Oh, if but one man could arise with a genius capable 
of communicating those eternal truths that belong to 
this question, to lay bare in all its nakedness that out- 
rage upon the goodness of God, human slavery; now 
is the time and this is the occasion, upon which such a 
man would perform the duties of an angel upon earth. 
—Ibid, vol. V, p. 210. 

Hayne speaks on the Panama mission in the 
United States senate, March, 1826, in these pro- 
phetic words: 

The question of slavery is one, in all its bearings of 
extreme delicacy; and concerning which I know of but 
a single wise and safe rule, either for the states in 
which it exists or for the Union. It must be considered 
and treated entirely as a domestic question. With re- 
spect to foreign nations, the language of the United 
States ought to be, that it concerns the peace of our 
own political family, and therefore we cannot permit it 
to be touched; and in respect to the slaveholding spates, 
the only safe and constitutional ground on which they 
can stand is, that they will not permit it to be brought 
into question, either by their sister states or by the 
federal government. It is a matter for ourselves. To 
touch it at all, is to violate our most sacred rights — to 
put in jeopardy our dearest interests — the peace of our 
country — the safety of our families, our altars, and cur 
firesides. ... On the slave question my opinion is 
this; I consider our rights in that species of propeityaa 
not even open to discussion, either here or elsewhere; 
and in respect to our duties, (imposed by our situation,) 



150 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

we are not to be taught them by fanatics, religious, or 
political. To call into question our rights, is grossly to 
violate them; to attempt to instruct us on this subject 
is to insult us; to dare to assail our institutions, is 
wantonly to invade our peace. Let me solemnly de- 
clare, once for all, that the Southern States never will 
permit, and never can permit, any interference what- 
ever in their domestic concerns; and that the very day 
on which the unhallowed attempt shall be made by the 
authorities of the federal government, we will consider 
ourselves as driven from the Union. Let the conse- 
quences be what they may, they never can be worse 
than such as must inevitably result from suffering a 
rash and ignorant interference with our domestic peace 
and tranquillity. But ... I apprehend no such 
violation of our constitutional rights. I believe that 
this house is not disposed and that the great body of 
our intelligent and patriotic fellow-citizens in the other 
states have no inclination whatever to interfere with 
us. . . . If we are true to ourselves we shall have 
nothing to fear. — Benton. 

By 1831 the raising of slaves in the northern 
states for market had become a recognized in- 
dustry, as may be seen from the following let- 
ters and speeches: 

Henry Clay, in an address before the Ken- 
tucky Colonization Society in 1829, said: 

It is believed that nowhere in the United Statea 
would slave labor be generally employed, if the pro- 
prietor was not tempted to raise slaves by the high 
price of the Southern market, which keeps it up in his 
own. — Ibid, p. 257. 

Prof. Dew, president of William and Mary 
college, in reviewing the debates in the Vir- 
ginia constitutional convention, in 1831-2, said 
of the domestic slave trade: 

A full equivalent being thus left in the place et the 
slave, this immigration becomes an advantage to the 
State, and does not check the black population . . . 
because it furnishes every inducement to the master 
to attend to the negroes, to encourage breeding, and to 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 151 

cause the greatest number possible to be raised. . . . 
Virginia is in fact a negro-raising State for otlier States. 
—Goodell, p. 250. 

Chas. F. Mercer, in the Virginia constitu- 
tional convention of 1829, said: 

The tables of the natural growth of the slave popula- 
tion demonstrate, when compared with the [actual] 
Increase of its numbers in the Commonwealth for 20 
yrs. past, that an annual revenue of not less than a 
million and a half of dollars is derived from the ex- 
portation of a part of this population. — Ibid, p. 250. 

Mr. Gholson, in the Virginia legislature, 
January 18, 1831 

[Claimed the right of] the owner of brood mares to 
their product, and of the owner of female slaves to their 
increase. The legal maxim of partus sequiter ventrcm 
is coeval with the existence of the right of property 
Itself, and is founded in wisdom and justice. It is oa 
the justice and inviolability of this maxim that the 
master foregoes the services of a female slave — has her 
nursed and raises the helpless infant offspring. The 
value of the property justifies the expense; and I do 
not hesitate to say that in its increase consists much 
of our wealth.— Z&id, p. 257. 

Let us now see what views were held In re- 
gard to the printing and disseminating of aboli- 
tion literature by 1835. 

The South Carolina legislature passed this re- 
solve in 1835: 

Resolved, That the Legislature of South Carolina, hav- 
ing every confidence in the justice and friendship ot 
the non-slaveholding States, announces her confident ex- 
nectation, and she earnestly requests, that the Govern- 
ment of these States will promptly and effectually sup- 
press all those associations within their respective 
limits, purporting to be abolition societies. , . .— > 
Cited in Goodell, p. 4IS. 

The North Carolina general assembly [1835] : 

Resolved, That our sister States are respectfully re- 
quested to enact penal laws, prohibiting the printing, 



152 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

•within their respective limits, all such publlcationg 
as may have a ten':lency to make our slavca Jiscoii- 
tented. — Ihld, p. ^13. , 

The Alabama legislature [1836] : 

Resolved, That we call upon our sister States, and 
respectfully request them to enact such penal laws as 
will finally put an end to the malignant deeds of the 
abolitionists, — Ibid, p. J^IS. 

Virginia legislature [1836]: 

Fesolved, That the non-slaveholding States of the 
Union are respectfully but earnestly requested promptly 
to adopt penal enactments or such other measures as 
will effectually suppress all associations within their 
respective limits purporting to be, or having the char- 
acter of abolition societies.— J&((f, p. ^17. 

On learning that the United States mails had 
been searched for ''incendiary documents" at 
Charleston, South Carolina, on July 29, 1835, 
Postmaster-General Amos Kendall said: 

: By no act or direction of mine, official or private, 
could I be induced to aid, knowingly, in giv.ng circula- 
tion to papers of this description, directly or indirectly. 
We owe an obligation to the laws, but a higher one to 
the communities in which we live, and if the former bo 
permitted to destroy the latter, it is patriotism to dis- 
regard them. Entertaining these views I cannot sanc- 
tion, and will not condemn, the step you have taken. 
Your justification must be looked for in the character 
of the papers detained and the circumstances by which 
you are surrounded.— /&td, p. 4I6. 

President Jackson, in his annual message, 
December, 1835, used these words in discussing 
the subject: 

1 would therefore call the special attention of Con- 
gress to the subject, and respectfully suggest the pro- 
priety of passing such a law as will prohibit under 
severe penalties, the circulation, in the Southern States, 
through the mail, of incendiary publications, intended 
to instigate the slaves to insurrection- 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 153 

THE RIGHT OP PETITION. 

King (Ala.): 

We were sent here to do the business of the public 
and not to set up arbitrary codes for the protection of 
our dignity, and then be left to determine what dignity 
means. I consider true senatorial dignity to consist in 
a straight-forward, independent discbarge of our consti- 
tutional duties, and not in searching into the language 
employed by our constituents, when they ask us for a 
redress of grievances, to see if we cannot find some pre- 
text to commit a fraud upon the consti ution. — Benton, 
vol. XII, p. 723. 

Buchanan (Pa.): 

Let it once be understood that the sacred right of 
petition and the cause of the abolitionists must rise or 
fall together, and the consequences may be fatal. . . 
We have just as little right to interfere with slavery 
in the South as we have to touch the right of peti- 
tion. , . . Can a republican government exist with- 
out it? . . . If the people have a constitutional 
right to petition, a corresponding duty is imposed upon 
us to receive their petitions. — Ibid, pp. 733-5. 

Adams: 

[A discussion on petitions is bound to be merely] a 
discussion upon the merits of slavery. Sir, on such a 
discussion every speech made by a Representative from 
the north of Mason and Dixon's line, in this House, 
will be an incendiary pamphlet and what will you do 
with them? , . . The newspapers report these 
speeches; every speech is circulated through your 
whole country; and how can you arrest it? , . . 
Well, sir, you begin with suppressing the right of peti- 
tion; you must next suppress the right of speech in 
this House; for you must offer a resolution that every 
member who dares to express a sentiment of this kind 
shall be expelled, or that speeches shall not go forth 
to the public— shall not be circulated. What will be 
the consequence then? You suppress the right of 
petition; you suppress the freedom of speech; the free- 
dom of the press, and the freedom of religion; for, in 
the minds of many worthy, honest, and honorable men, 
fanatics, if you please so to call them, this is a re- 
11 



154 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

llgious question . . » and however erroneous may 
be their conclusions, It Is not for me, nor for this 
House, to judge them. — Ibid, vol. XIII, pp. 9-10. 

Calhoun was the great apostle of the south, 
and his words — the words of an honest man — 
will usually give us the very clearest insight 
into the thought of his section: 

On the right of rejecting abolition petitions, al- 
though, in his opinion, one of the clearest that can be 
imagined, we of the South were, unfortunately for the 
peace of the country, in a minority. So, also, on tha 
question of the constitutional right of abolishing slav- 
ery in this District and the Territories, and also on 
every other particular question which has been at- 
tempted to be raised on constitutional grounds, as a 
barrier to our rights and security. What remains, 
then, short of taking our protection into our own hands, 
but to find some barrier in the general character and 
structure of our political system? and where can we 
find that but in the view of the Constitution, which 
considers it as a compact between sovereign and in- 
dependent States, formed for their mutual prosperity 
and security? 

He saw (said Mr. C.) in the question before us the 
fate of the South. It was a higher than the mere 
naked question of master and slave. It involved a 
great political institution, essential to the peace and 
existence of one-half of this Union. 

They were there inseparably united, beyond the pos- 
sibility of separation. Experience had shown that the 
existing relation between them secured the peace and 
happiness of both. Each had improved; the inferior 
greatly; so much so, that it hg.d attained a degree of 
civilization never before attained by the black race in 
any age or country. Under no other relation could they 
co-exist together. To destroy it was to involve a whole 
region in slaughter, carnage, and desolation; and, 
come what will, we must defend and preserve it. 

This agitation has produced one happy effect at 
least; it has compelled us of the South to look into the 
nature and character of this great institution, and to 
correct many false impressions that even we had en- 
tertained in relation to it. Many in the South once be- 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 155 

lieved that it was a moral and political evil; that folly 
and delusion are gone; we see it now in its true light 
and regard it as the most sate and stable basis for free 
institutions in the world. — Congressional Glohe, vol. TI, 
pp. 29, 61-62. 

. . . It is easy to see the end. By the necessary 
course of events, if left to themselves, we must be- 
come, finally, two peoples. It is impossible under the 
deadly hatred which must spring up between the two 
great sections, if the present causes are permitted to 
operate unchecked, that we should continue under the 
same political system. The conflicting elements would 
burst the Union asunder. . . . We of the South 
will not, cannot, surrender our institutions. . . . 
But let me not be understood as admitting, even by 
implication, that the existing relations between the 
two races in the slaveholding States is an evil: — far 
otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus: iar 
proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove 
so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolitionism. 
[Discusses relations; then says:] But I take higher 
ground. I hold that in the present state of civilization, 
where two races of different origin, and distinguished 
by color, and other physical differences, as well as in- 
tellectual, are brought together, the relation now exist- 
ing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, in- 
stead of an evil, a good — a positive good. — Callioiin, 
V^orks, vol. II, pp. 629-30. 

The various "Gag" rules, or rules to prevent 
the reception and discussion of petitions in re- 
gard to slavery, were passed as follows: 

[Pinckney's of 5|26|1836. Adopted by 117 to 68 votes 
in House of Representatives]: 

"Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, resolutions, 
and propositions relating, in any way, or to any extent, 
whatever, to the subject of slavery, shall, without be- 
ing either printed or referred, be laid on the table, and 
no further action whatever shall be had thereon." 

Hawes', 1|18|'37: enacted by 115 to 47. 

Patton's, 12|21|'37: enacted by 122 to 74. 

Atherton's, 1|12|'38: enacted by 126 to 78. 

Johnson's, 11281'40: enacted by 114 to 108, and made a 
Standing rule of the House till ISiG.—GoodcU, pp. 422-3. 



156 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phil 
lips, as the leaders of the Abolitionists, speak in 
no uncertain tones, as the following extracts 
will show: 

W. L. GatTison in Faneuil Hall, 1843. 

Resolved, That the compact which exists between the 
North and the South is "a covenant with death and an 
agreement with hell"— involving both parties in atro- 
cious criminality, and should be immediately annulled. 

We cannot regard any man as a consistent abolition- 
ist who, while holding to the popular construction of 
the Constitution, makes himself a party to that instru- 
ment, by talcing any office under it requiring an oath, 
or voting for its support. 

Resolutions of We7idell Phillips. 

That the abolitionists of this country should make it 
one of the primary objects of their agitation, to dis- 
solve the American Union; [and again] That secession 
from the present United States Government is the duty 
of every abolitionist; since no one can take office, or 
throw a vote for another to hold office, under the 
United States Constitution, without violating his anti- 
slavery principles, and rendering himself an abettor of 
the slaveholder in his sin. 

W. L. Garrison, in an address to the Friends 
of Freedom in the United States, undertook a 
fresh declaration of its principles — first, as re- 
gards slavery: 

That it ought to be immediately and forever abol- 
ished; and as regards the existing national compact, 
"That it is a covenant with death and an agreement 
with hell," and that henceforth, therefore, until slavery 
be abolished the watchword shall be No Union With 
Slavkiiolders. 

Continued — To accomplish this sublime resolution 
the Society registers its sacred pledge to continue its 
agitation on the above lines. — Life and Writings of 
William Lloyd Garrison, vol. Ill, pp. 88, 90, 100. 

PLATFORMS. 

Buffalo platform of Free Soil Party of 8-9-1848. 
Resolved, That we ... do plant ourselves upon 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 157 

the National Platform of Freedom, in oypofsittun to tha 
Sectional Platform of Slavery. 

Resolved. That slavery in the several States ot this 
Union which recognize its existence, depends upon 
State laws alone, which cannot be repealed or modified 
by the Federal Government, and for which laws that 
Government is not responsible. We therefore propose 
no interference by Congress with slavery within the 
limits uf any State. 

Resolved, That . . . the entire history of that 
period [1784-7, etc.] clearly shows that it was the set- 
tled policy of the nation not to extend, nationalize, or 
encourage, but to limit, localize, and discourage slav- 
ery; and to this policy, which should never have been 
departed from, the Government ought to return. . . 

Resolved, That we accept the issue which the slave 
power has forced upon us, and to their demand for 
more slave States, and more slave Territory, our calm 
but final answer is, No more slave States, and no more 
slave Territory. Let the soil of our extensive domains 
be ever kept free. . . . 

From 1845 to 1850 the great question in con- 
gress was in regard to the nature of the power 
of government in the territories. The following 
extracts suggest several views: 

If . . . that experiment [annexation of new soil] 
shall not prove successful, so as to disprove the as- 
serted possibility of the co-existence of the two races 
and two colors, side by side, on the same soil, in a rela- 
tion of freedom and equality of rights, how can any of 
the friends of either desire to keep them forcibly pent 
up within the States when every day is tending faster 
and faster to ferment the discordant elements into a 
result which threatens to be the dissolution of both^ 
instead of opening this safety valve by which the nox- 
ious vapor may pass off harmlessly and insensibly? 

Crowd then your population into the Southern States 
as you may, rapidly and without fear. Texas will open 
before it as an outlet, and slavery, retiring from the 
Middle and Southern States of the present confederacy, 
will find for a time a resting-place there. But only for 
a time. For the irresistable law of population which 
decrees that in a densely peopled region slavery shall 



158 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

cease to exist, will emancipate Texas in her turn, and 
the negro will then pass to a land of political freedom 
and social dignity under a genial sky. He will pass 
without convulsion and leaving no domestic ruin in 
his path. As his labor becomes less and less valuable, 
emancipation, a gradual, progressive, at last universal, 
will pass him over the southern border to his own ap- 
propriate home in Mexico and the States beyond. — 
Democratic Review, vol. XXIII, p. lOG, IS/fS. 

Rhett (S. C): 

The Court declares that the territories belong to the 
; United States. They are tenants in common, or joint 
proprietors and co-sovereigns over them. As co-sov- 
ereigns they have agreed in their common compact, the 
Constitution, that their agent, the General Government, 
"may dispose of and make all needful rules and regula- 
tions" with regard to them, but beyond this, they are 
not limited or limitable in their rights. Thv3 sov- 
ereignty, unalienated and unimpaired by this mutual 
concession to each other, exists in all its plenitude 
over our territories; as much so as within the limits of 
the States themselves. Yet there can be no conflict, 
for none of the States can make any "rules and regula- 
tions" separately within the territories, which may 
bring them in conflict. The "rules and regulations" 
prevailing will be made by all and obligatory on all, 
through their common agency, the government of the 
United States. The only effect and prcbib'y the only 
object of their reserved sovereignty is that it secures 
to each State the right to enter the territories with her 
citizens and settle and occupy them with their prop- 
erty — with whatever is recognized as property by each 
State. The ingress of the citizen is the ingress of his 
sovereign, who is bound to protect him in his settle- 
ment. . . . He is not responsible to any of the co- 
sovereigns for the nature of his property. — GJohe, 20lh 
Congress, Second Session, App., p. 243. 

Senator Cutler (S. C): 

His advice to his constituents would be, to go to these 
new territories with arms in their hands; to go aa 
armed communities, and take possession of the lands 
which they had helped to acquire, and see who woul(J 
attempt to dispQSse95 them. . , . So Ueip him God 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 159 

he would so advise his constituents to take with them 
their property there and settle at all hazards. — Globe, 
SOth Congress, First Session, p. 1060. 

Calhoun (S. C): 

The separation of the North and South is completed. 
The South has now a most solemn obligation to per- 
form — to herself — to the Constitution — to the Union. 
She is bound to come to a decision not to permit this to 
go on any further but to show that, dearly as she prizes 
the Union, there are questions which she regards as of 
greater importance than the Union. — Ibid, p. 107.'f. 

Webster (Mass.): 

We certainly do not prevent them [Southern men] 
from going into these territories with what is in general 
law called property. But these States have by their 
local laws created a property in persons, and they can- 
not carry these local laws with them. . . . No man 
can be held as a slave, except the local law shall ac- 
company him. — Ibid, p. 1018. 

Dickinson (N. Y.): 

That no conditions can be constitutionally imposed 
upon any territorial acquisition, inconsistent with the 
right of the people thereof to form a free, sovereign. 
State, with the powers and privileges of the original 
members of the Confederacy, I deem too obvious for 
serious argument. Whatever laws Congress may con- 
stitutionally enact for the regulation of the territories of 
the United States are subject to be altered or repealed 
at pleasure. . . . Every State admitted to the Union 
from the moment of its admission, enjoys all the rights 
of sovereignty common to every other member of the 
Confederacy. ... If any State is prohibited from 
[any of or] all the rights of every other then it is not 
. . . a sovereign State. . . . Every State after its 
admission, may, in virtue of its own sovereign power, 
establish or abolish this institution [slavery] whatever 
may have been the conditions imposed, or attempted to 
be imposed, upon it during its territorial existence. 

Whatever power may or may not rest in Congress 
under the Constitution, that instrument could not take 
from the people of territories the right to prescribe their 
owo (Jomestie policy; uor has it att^mptecj 9,ny sucb 



160 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

office. . . . The republican theory teaches that sov- 
ereignty resides with the people of a State, and not with 
its political organization. ... If sovereignty re- 
sides with the people and not with the organization, it 
rests as well with the people of a Territory, in all that 
concerns their internal condition as with the people of 
an organized State. . . . And if in this respect a 
form of government is proposed to them by the Federal 
Government, and adopted or acquiesced in by them, tli;y 
may afterwards alter or abolish it at pleasure. Al- 
though the government of a Territory has not the same 
sovereign power as the government of a State in its 
political relations, the people of a Territory have, in all 
that appertains to their internal condition, the same 
sovereign rights as the people of a State. — Ibid, p. 8S. 

Calhoun (S. C): 

The assumption [tliat the sovereignty resides in the 
inhabitants of the territories] is utterly unfounded, un- 
constitutional, without example, and contrary to the 
entire practice of the government from its commence- 
ment to the present time. — Glohe, Slst Congress. First 
Session, p. 4514. 

Compromise of 1850. 

Clay (Ky.): 

It would not be possible to get twenty votes in the 
Senate, or a proportional vote in the House, Clay said, 
in favor of the recognition of slavery south of 36 degrees 
30 minutes. "It is impossible. All that you can get — 
all that you can expect to get— all that was proposed at 
the last session — is action north of that line, and non- 
action as regards slavery south of that line. . , It is 
better for the South, that there should be non-action as 
to slavery both north and south of the line — far better 
that there should be non-action both sides of the line, 
than that there should be action by the interdiction on 
the one side, without action for the admission upon the 
other side of the line." — Globe, vol. XXII, pt. I, p. 125. 

Webster (Mass.): 

There is not at this moment, within the United 
States, or any territory of the United States, a single 
foot of land, the character of which ib regard to its 
being free-soil territory or slave territory is not fixed 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 161 

by some faw, and some irrepealable law beyono tho 
power of the action of this government. 

What, then, have been the causes which have created 
so new a feeling in favor of slavery in the South — which 
have changed the whole nomenclature of the South on 
the subject — and from being thought of and described 
in the terms I have mentioned ... it has now be- 
come an institution, a cherished institution there; no 
evil, no scourge, but a great religious, social, and moral 
blessing, as I think I have heard it latterly described? 
I suppose this, sir, is owing to the sudden uprising and 
rapid gi'owth of the cotton plantations of the South. — 
Ibid, p. 272. 

Douglas (111.): 

You cannot fix bounds to the onward march of this 
great and growing country. You cannot fetter the 
limbs of a young giant. He will burst your chains. He 
will expand and grow, and increase, and extend civiliza- 
tion, Christianity, and liberal principles. Then, sir, if 
you cannot check the growth of the country in that 
direction, is it not the part of wisdom to look the danger 
in the face, and provide for an event you cannot avoid? 
I tell you, sir, you must provide for continuous lines of 
settlement from the Mississippi Valley to the Pacific 
Ocean. And in making this provision you must decide 
upon what principles the territory shall be organized; 
and in other words, whether the people shall be allowed 
to regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way, according to the provisions of this bill, or whether 
the opposite doctrine of congressional interference is to 
prevail. Postpone it, if you will; but whenever you do 
act, this question must be met and decided. — iiheahan's 
Life of Douylas, p. 259. 

Seward (N. Y.): 

My position concerning legislative compromises is 
this, namely: personal, partizan, temporary, and sub- 
ordinate questions, may lawfully be compromised; but 
principles can never be justly or wisely made the sub- 
jects of compromise. By principles I mean the elements 
in public questions of moral rights, political justice, and 
high national expediency. Does any honorable senator 
assert a different maxim on the subject of legislative 
compromise? — - , 



162 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

There Is no peace in this world for compromisers; 
there is no peace for those who practice evasion; there 
is no peace in a republican land for any statesman but 
those who act directly, and boldly abide the popular 
judgment whenever it may be fairly and clearly and 
fully ascertained, without attempting to falsify the 
issue submitted, or to corrupt the tribunal. — Works, vol. 
IV. PI). 517, 611. 

A. H. Stephens, to his brother Linton, 1850: 

In the message received to-day you will see that the 
policy of General Taylor is that the people inhabiting 
the new acquisitions shall come into the Union as 
States, without the adoption of territorial governments. 
. . . But the bearing of this policy on the great ques- 
tions of the day is a matter still to be considered. Will 
the Slavery question be settled in this way? I think 
not. My deliberate opinion at this time, or the opinion 
I have formed from the best lights before me, is that it 
will be the beginning of an end which will be the sever- 
ance of the political bonds that unite the slave-holding 
and non-slaveholding States of this Union. I give you 
this view rather in opposition to the one I ventured to 
express on the evening of the 25th of December. I then 
looked to settlement and adjustment and a preservation 
of the Union; and as far as I then saw on the horizon, 
I think the opinion was correct. There will, perhaps, 
be a temporary settlement and a temporary quiet 
But I have lately been taking a farther and a broader 
view of the future. When I look at the causes of the 
present discontent I am persuaded there will never 
again be harmony between the two great sections of 
the Union. When California and New Mexico and 
Oregon and Nebraska are admitted as States, then the 
majority in the Senate will be against us. The power 
will be with them to harass, annoy, and oppress. And 
it is a law of power to exert itself, as universal as it is 
a law of nature that nothing shall stand still. Cast 
your eye, then, a few years into the future, and see 
what images of strife are seen figuring on the boards! 
In the halL<5 of Congress, nothing but debates about the 
crimes and the iniquity of slavery and the duty of the 
General Government to withhold all countenance of the 
unholy institution of human bondage. Can Southern 
Ipaen occupy seats in tbe halls of a. l»egislature witb thlg 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 163 

constant reproach? It is not reasonable. It is more 
than I expect. It is more than human nature can 
expect. The present crisis may pass; the present 
adjustment may be made; but the great question of the 
periaanence of slavery in the Southern States will be 
far from being settled thereby. And, in my opinion, 
the crisis of that question is not far ahead. The very 
palliatives now so soothingly administered do but more 
speedily develop the stealthly disease which is fast ap- 
proaching the vitals. . . . My opinion is that a dis- 
memberment of this Republic is not among the 
improbabilities of a few years to come. In all my acts 
t shall look to that event. I shall do nothing to favor 
it or hasten, but I now consider it inevitable. . . . 
But I should not say much in praise of the Union. I 
see no hope to the South from the Union. ... I 
do not believe much in resolutions, any way. . . . 
If I were now in the Legislature, I should introduce 
bills reorganizing the militia, for the establishment of 
a military school, the encouragement of the formation 
of volunteer companies, the creation of arsenals, of an 
armory, and an establishment for making gunpowder. 
In these lies our defence. I tell you the argument is 
exhausted; and if the South do not intend to be over- 
run with anti-slavery doctrines, they must, before no 
distant day, stand by their arms. My mind is made 
up; I am for the fight, if the country will back me. 
And if not we had better have no 'Resolutions,' and 
no gasconade. They will but add to our degradation. 
. . . My course shall be directed to the future. I 
shall regard with little interest the events of the inter- 
vening years. . . . One other thought. Could the 
South maintain a separate political organization? On 
this I have thought a great deal. It has been the 
most perplexing question to my mind. The result of 
my reflections is that she could, if her psople be united. 
She would maintain her position, I think, better than 
the North. She has great elements of power. — John- 
ston-Broivne, Life of A. H. 8te2)liens, pp. 2^3-5. 

THE EXCITING YEARS 1850-1860. 

They threaten us with a great Northern party, and a 
general war up-jn the South. If they were not mere 
hucksters in politics— with only this peculiarity, that 



164 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

every man offers himself, instead of some other com- 
modity, for sale — we should surmise that they might do 
what they threaten, and thus bring out the real triumph 
of the South, by making a dissolution of the Union 
necessary. 

But they will do no such thing. They will threaten 
and Utter a world of swelling self-glorification, and end 
by knociiing themselves down to the highest bidder. 
To be sure, if they could make the best bargain by 
distroying the South, they would set about it without 
delay. But they cannot. They live upon us, and the 
South affords them the double glorification of an object 
for hatred and a field for plunder. How far they may 
be moved to carry their indignation at this time it is 
impossible to say; but we may be sure they will cool off 
just at the point when they discover that they can 
make nothing more out of it, and may lose. — Charleston 
Mercnri/, Quoted hy Redpath, Echoes, p. JfGO. 

It is vain to disguise it, the great issue of our day in 
this country is. Slavery or no Slavery. The present 
phase of that issue is, the extension or non-extension of 
the institution, the foundations of which are broad and 
solid in our midst. Whatever the general measure — 
whatever the political combinations — whatever the 
party movement — whatever the action of sections at 
Washington, the one single, dominant, and pervading 
idea, solving all leading questions, insinuating itself 
into every policy, drawing the horoscope of all aspi- 
rants, serving as a lever or fulcrum for every interest, 
class and individuality — a' sort of directing fatality, is 
that master issue. As in despite of right and reason — ■ 
of organisms and men — of interests and efforts, it has 
become per se political destiny — why not meet it? It 
controls the North, it controls the South — it precludes 
escape. It is at last and simply a question between the 
South and the remainder of the Union, as sections and 
as people All efforts to give it other direction, to 
solve it by considerations other than those which per- 
tain to them in their local character and fates, to 
divest it, to confound it with objects and designs of a 
general nature, is [sic] rendered futile. It has to be 
determined by the real parties, by their action in their 
character as sections — inchoate countries.— C/wricsfon 
Eieniny News, Quoted in Redpath, p. 496. 

The North has thus far carried the So'ith on ita 



iLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 166 

shoulders, and this it is bound to do in all time to eome. 
It has purchased its lands, maintained the fleets and 
armies required for its purposes, and stood between it 
and the public opinion of the world while maintaining 
the value of its commodities and giving value to its 
labor and land. During the whole of this period it has 
borne unmeasured insolence, and has for the sake of 
peace, permitted its whole policy to be governed by a 
body of slaveholders amounting to but little more than 
a quarter of a million in number. It has made one 
compromise after another until at length the day of 
compromise has passed, and has given place to the day 
on which the South and the North — the advocates of 
Slave labor on the one side and Free labor on the 
other — are now to measure strength, and we trust it 
icill be measured. — Redpath, EcJioes, p. 512. 

Falstaff was strong in words, but weak in action. So 
it is with the South, whose every movement betokens 
conscious weakness. For a quarter of a century past 
she has been holding conventions, at which it has been 
resolved thdt Norfolk, Charleston and Savannah slwuld 
become great commercial cities, which obstinately they 
refuse to be. She has resolved upon all kinds of ex- 
pedients for raising the price of cotton, which yet is 
lower by l-3d..than it was ten years since. She has re- 
6oh-<rd to suppress discussion of slavery and the dis- 
oussion is now more rife than ever before. She hag 
resolved upon becoming strong and independent, but 
is now more dependent upon the forbearance of the 
world than in any time past. Under such circum- 
stances, there need be small fear of her secession from 
the North, which has so long stood between her and 
ruin. The irritability of our Southern friends is evi- 
dence of conscious weakness, and while that irritability 
shall continue, ttie danger of dissolution will continue 
to be far distant. 

The Union must be continued until at least the South 
shall have had the opportunity for taxing the North for 
the accomplishment of its projects. Until thai the 
Union cannot he dissolved. Such being the case, the real 
friend of the Union is he who opposes the annexation 
of Cuba and Hayti, and the extension of slavery; and 
the real disunionist is he who advocates compliance 
with Southern demands. Thus far, all the measures 



166 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

adopted for the promotion of the Southern objects 
ha\e been followed by increased abuse and increased 
threats of separation, and such will certainly be the 
case with all such future ones. To preserve the Union, 
it ia required that the North shall insist on its rights. 
. . . The only real disunionists of the country, north 
of Mason and Dixon's line, are the political dough- 
faces, like Pierce, Douglas, and Richardson, and the 
commercial doughfaces . . . who sell themselves 
to the South for those objects on which Southern mad- 
men now are bent. — Redixith, Echoes, 512-13. 

An extract from an "Address on Climatology," 
before the Academy of Science at New Orleans: 

The institution of slavery operates '}y contrast and 
comparison; it elevates the tone 3f the superior, adds 
to its refinement, allows- 'Bore time to cultivate the 
mind, exalts the standara in morals, manners, and in- 
tellectual endowments, operates as a safety valve for 
the evil-disposed, leaving the upper race power, while 
it preserves from degradation, in the scale of civiliza- 
tion, the inferior, which we see in their uniform destiny 
when left to themselves. The slaves constitute essen- 
tially ^^he lowest class, and society is immeasurably 
benefited by having this class which constitutes the 
offensive fungus — the great cancer of civilized life — a 
vast burthen and expense to every community, under 
surveillance and control; and not- only so, but under 
direction as an efficient agent to promote the general 
welfare and increase the wealth of the community. 
The history of the world furnishes no institution under 
similar management, where so much good actually re- 
sults to the governors and to the governed as this in 
the Southern states of North America. — Quoted in Olm- 
sted's "Cotton Kingdom," p. 277. 

As an offset to the preceding let us hear from 
Wendell Phillips on "The Lesson of the Hour," 
Brooklyn, Nov. 1, 1859: 

. . . Somewhat briefly stated, such is the idea of 
American civilization; uncompromising faith — in the 
average selfishness, if you choose — of all classes, neu- 
tralizing each other, a.nd tending towards that fair play 
that Saxons love. But it seems to me that, on all ques- 



SLAVERY IN THE UNITEt) STATES. 167 

tions, we dread thought; we shrink behind something; 
we acknowledge ourselves unequal to the sublime faith 
of our fathers; and the exhibition of the last twenty 
years and of the present state of public affairs is, that 
Americans dread to look their real position in the face, 
. . . They have no idea of absolute right. They 
were born since 1787, and absolute right means the 
truth diluted by a strong decoction of the Constitution 
of 1789. They breathe that atmosphere. They do not 
want to sail outside of it; they do not attempt to rea- 
son outside of it. Poisoned with printer's ink, or 
choked with cotton dust, they stare at absolute right, 
as the dream of madmen. For the last twenty years, 
there has been going on, more or less heeded and un- 
derstood in various states, an insurrection of ideas 
against the limited, cribbed, cabined, isolated American 
civilization interfering to restor abso.ute right. . . , 
Thank God, I am not a citizen. You will remember, 
all of you, citizens of the United States, that there was 
not a Virginia gun fired at John Brown. . . . You 
shot him. Sixteen marines to whom you pay $8 a 
month — your own representatives, ..." sixteen men, 
with the Vulture of the Union above them— your rep- 
resentatives! It was the covenant with death and 
agreement with hell which you call the Union of the 
States, that took the old man by the throat with a pri- 
vate hand. . . . — Redprsth, EcJwes. 

Let us hear Lincoln speak: 

If we would first know where we are, and whither v,'e 
are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how 
to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a 
policy [Kansas-Nebraska bill] was initiated with the 
avowed object and confident promise of putting an end 
to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that 
policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has 
constantly augmenled. In my opinion, it will not cease 
until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A 
house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe 
this government cannot endure permanently half slave 
and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dis- 
solved—I do not expect the house to fall — but I do ex- 
pect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one 
thing, or all the other. . . . —Lincoln, Works, I., 
«. 2W. - ' 



168 AMERICAN HISTOUY STUDIES. 

The Lincoln-Douglas debate, 1858: 
I do not question Mr. Lincoln's conscientious belief 
that the negro was made his equal, and hence is his 
brother, but for my own part I do not regard the negro 
as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother 
or any kin to me whatever. ... He [Lincoln] holds 
that the negro was born his equal and yours, and that 
he was endowed with equality by the Almighty, and 
that no human law can deprive him of these rights 
which were guaranteed to him by the Supreme Ruler 
of the universe. Now, I do not believe that the Al- 
mighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the 
white man. . . . He belongs to an inferior race, 
and must occupy an inferior position. I do not hold 
that because the negro is our inferior, therefore he 
ought to be a slave. By no means can such a conclu- 
sion be drawn from what I have said. On the contrary, 
I hold that humanity and Christianity both require 
that the negro shall have and enjoy every right, every 
privilege, and every immunity consistent with the 
safety of the society in which he lives. ... — 
Douglas, in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, Works, Lincoln, 
I., p. 28J,. 

While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman 
called upon me to know whether I was really in favor 
of producing a perfect equality between the negroes 
and white people. ... I will say then that I am not, 
nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any 
way the social and political equality of the white and 
black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in fa- 
vor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of quali- 
fying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white 
people; and I will say In addition to this that there is 
a physical difference between the white and black races 
which I believe will forever forbid the two races living 
together on terms of social and political equality'^ And 
Inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain 
together there must be the position of superior and 
inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor 
of having the superior position assigned to the white 
race. — Lincoln, in Lincoln-Douglas Debates, Lincoln's 
Works, 1 ^ p. 369. 



BLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 1G9 

QUESTIONS. 

1. What did J. Q. Adams think of slavery? 2. What 
did he expect to be necessary in order to secure its 
abolition? 3. Was his plan statesmanlike? 4. Were 
his predictions in part fulfilled? 5. Did he attempt in 
later years the work he here lays out for some man? 
6. How did Hayne differ from Adams? 7. Did he see 
danger in the questions? 8. What remedy did he pro- 
pose? 9. How do you explain the different positions? 
IC. Investigate to see whether Hayne had a constitu- 
tional foundation for his position. 11. Why did the 
northern slave states desire the continuance of the 
system? 12. What profit came to Virginia from the 
system? 13. Would Virginia naturally favor or oppose 
the slave trade? 

1. What is meant by "incendiary documents"? 2. 
How were they disposed of in the south? 3. Was such 
a method right, constitutional? 4. What lequests did 
the south make of northern states regarding these doc- 
uments? 5. Were they right in demanding their sup- 
pression? 6. How did President Jackson propose to 
deal with the question? 7. Would his plan have been 
constitutional? 8. What was the real difficulty? 

1. Find out what the constitution says in regard to 
the right of petition. 2. Find out the nature of the 
petitions sent to Congress. 3. What did Mr. King 
think of the petitions? 4. What mistake did the eoiith 
make in opposing the reception of petitions? 5. Name 
points in Calhoun's argument. 6. Wlmt view doeo he 
take in regard to slavery? 7. Had the south always 
held the same views? 8. Did he hold slavery in the 
abstract to be a good? 9. What prediction did he 
make? 10. Have his predictions been fulfilled? 11. 
What objection, if any, to the "gag" rule? 12. What 
conclusion can you draw from the various votes on the 
"gag" rules? 

1. How did Garrison regard the constitution? Why? 
2. Was he a secessionist? 3. How does the Buffalo 
Platform differ in theory from Garrison and Phillips? 
4. How did the Democratic Review believe slavery 
would end? 5. What theories are given in various ex- 
tracts in regard to method of control or government 
of the territories? 6. How did Webster hold the char- 
acter of the institutions of the territories had been 
fixed? 7. How did Seward regard compromises? 8. 
Was he right? 9. If so what do you say of the men 
who made the constitution? 10. What end did A. H. 
Stephens predict for the Union? 11. Compare views 
of Stephens and Phillips and Garrison. 12. How ex- 
plain their views? 

1. Did the north and the south understand each 
other? 2. What qualities did the south believe char- 
acterized the people of the north? 3. What did the 
north think of the southern people? 4. Wliy was Cjba 
wished? 5. Did the south believe slavery right? G. 
12 



170 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

What arguments given to prove their view? 7. What 
did Xv'endell Phillips think of the character of the 
American people in 1859? 8. Was he right? 9. What 
difference in tone between Lincoln and Phillips? 10. 
How did Lincoln hope to end slavery? 11. How did 
Lincoln regard the negro? 12. How Douglas? 13. 
What difference in view between the two? 

1. Make an outline covering this whole period. 2. 
Write an essay on the reasons for the contradictory 
views of the northern and southern statesmen. 



THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION 



Civil "War, 1861-65. Slaves freed by thirteenth 
amendment, 1865. Citizenship defined in four- 
teenth amendment, 1868; and suffrage granted 
to the negroes by the fifteenth, 1870. Tennessee 
reconstructed, 1865; other seceded states fully 
restored to Union by 1870. " Carpet Bag " 
governments, 1866-77. Ku Klux Klan, 1866-72. 
States again in control of whites by 1877. 
Struggle between Congress and President 
Johnson, 1866-69. Impeachment of the Presi- 
dent, 1S68. Grant elected President, 1868. 
Troops withdrawn from south by President 
Hayes, 1877. 



CHAPTEK VIII 
THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION 

cA^N the last two numbers an attempt was 
'^ made to trace the development of the 
slavery question in American history. In 
this number the culmination is reached; the 
greatest of civil wars opens before us; and 
finally the Union appears, — or shall we say re- 
appears, reconstructed, with slavery as a remi- 
niscence. However, it must not be thought 
that the problem is ended. The American peo- 
ple £fre too much inclined to accept first settle- 
ments as if they were finals. Citizenship was 
conferred on the negro when he was unprepared 
for it. He must now be fitted for his duties. 
Education in its broadest terms must be ex- 
tended to him. The whole country is inter- 
ested in, and affected by, the solution. The 
South has to bear the burden, in the main, as 
she had to bear that of slavery. In this con- 
nection, the most important question of the 
present and of the immediate future, at least, 
is that the North and the South do not become 
estranged over the solution of this questiofi 
as they did in regard to the original cause. 
Its difiiculties should be recognized by the 
North, and sympathy and aid, not criticism, 
should be given. 

This number opens with the election of Lin- 
coln, and the consequent secession of the South- 
ern States. The winter of 18G0-'61 was perhaps 
the most momentous and deeply interesting of 
any tha/ has passed over the history of our 
country. There may have been other moments 



TUB CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION. 173 

of more outward excitement, but none, perhaps, 
of the same intensity. There was a general 
feeling as the months passed that the crisis had 
come. The North could hardly be brought to 
realize that the Southern States intended to act 
in accordance with their words; the Southern 
people were possessed with the idea that the 
North was purely materialistic and would not 
fight for an ideal. How little the people of 
the two sections really did or could under- 
stand each other the four years from 1861 to 
1865 witness! 

However, when the end came, and the greater 
resources, — but only the same, not greater cour- 
age and devotion — had given the victory to the 
free states, and in giving them their triumph 
had made all free states, the settlement of the 
terms of reconstruction, was scarcely less dif- 
ficult and taxing than had been the details of 
the struggle itself. 

During the year 1860-'61 almost the entire 
history of the United States may be studied 
by tracing backward to their beginnings the 
principles that were then in controversy. The 
nature of the Constitution: were the States 
sovereignties? Under this heading we might 
trace the development of the idea back through 
the Nullification struggle, the Hartford con- 
vention, the Virginia and Kentucky resolu- 
tions to the Convention of 1787, and then be- 
yond to the forces that were foundational. 
The position of slavery under the Constitu- 
tion: its entire history would be necessary to 
estimate at their true worth the various argu- 
ments that were' advocated by the many groups 
into which the people were at the" time divided. 
The powers of the executive: what were their 
limits in time of war? But it is impossible to 
attempt an enumeration of the interesting ques- 
tions that are found in these years of American 



174 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

historj. Their settlement distinctly modified 
the world's history, and was of the greatest 
moment in determining the character and fu- 
ture of the United States. 

Lincoln, in his great Cooper Institute speech 
of February 27, 1860, discussed the subject of 
slavery as he saw it from the standpoint of the 
South and of the North. In the concluding 
portion he said: 

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly 
desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy 
shall be at peace and in harmony one with another. 
. . . Even though the Soutnern people will not so 
much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their de- 
mands and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of 
our duty, we possibly can. . , . What will satisfy 
them? Simply this: we must not only let them alone, 
but we must somehow convince them that we do let 
them alone. . . . What will convince them? This, 
and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join 
them in calling it right. . . . Their thinking it 
right and our thinking it wrong is the precise fact 
upon which depends the whole controversy. Think- 
ing it right, as they do, they are not to blame for de- 
siring its full recognition as being right; but thinking 
it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? — Works, I, 
pp. 611-12. 

December 22, 1860, Lincoln wrote to A. H. 
• Stephens in reply to a letter from Mr. Stephens 
in these words: 

I fully appreciate the present peril the country is in, 
and the weight of responsibility on me. Do the people 
of the South really entertain fears that a Republican 
administration would, -directly or indirectly, interfere 
with the slaves, or with them about the slaves? If 
they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and 
still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for 
such fears. The South would be in no more danger 
in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. 
I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You 
think slavery is right and ought to be extended, while 
we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted, i . , 
—/bid, p. 660, 



THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION. 175 

Od the way to Washington, in February, 
1861, Lincoln made a series of speeches. A 
few extracts from these will give us an insight 
into Lincoln's views at the last moment before 
he assumed oifice. 

At Indianapolis he said: 

The words "coercion" and "invasion" are much 
used in these days. . . . What, then, is "coercion"? 
What is "invasion"? Would the marching of an army 
into South Carolina without the consent of her people, 
and with hostile intent toward them, be "invasion"? 
I certainly think it would. . . . But if the United 
States should merely hold and retake its own forts 
and other property, etc., . . . would any or all of 
these be "invasion" or "coercion"? — Ibid, p. 673. 

In Cincinnati he repeated and reaflfirmed the 
words he had used in a speech there the year 
before. In part he spoke, addressing the peo- 
ple of Kentucky, as follows: 

We mean to treat you, as near as we possibly can, 
as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison treated you. 
We mean to leave you alone, and in no way interfere 
with your institutions; to abide by all and every com- 
promise of the Constitution. . . . Ibid, p. 675. 

At Columbus he used these words in con- 
cluding his address: 

I have not maintained silence from any want of 
real anxiety. It is a good thing that there is no more 
than anxiety, for there is nothing going wrong. It 
is a consoling circumstance that when we look out 
there is nothing that really hurts anybody. We enter- 
tain different views upon political questions, but no- 
body is suffering anything. This is a most consoling 
circumstance, and from it we may conclude that all 
we want is time, patience, and a reliance on that God 
who has never forsaken this people. — Works, I, p. 677. 

At Pittsburgh, on the same idea, he said: 

Notwithstanding the troubles across the river [point- 
ing south] there is no crisis but an artificial one. . . 
I repeat, then, there is no crisis excepting such a one 
as may be gotten up at any time by turbulent men 



176 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

aided by designing politicians. My advice to them, 
under sucli circumstances, is to keep cool. If the great 
American people only Iteep their temper on both sides 
of the line, the troubles will come to an end, and the 
question which now distracts the country will be set- 
tled, just as surely as all other difficulties ol a like 
character which have originated in this government 
have been adjusted. — Works, I, p. 678. 

Lincoln urges the same thought at Cleveland; 
but it is to be noticed that he did not repeat 
it again. A deeper and graver tone was mani- 
fest as he approached Washington. 

The foregoing extracts give an insight into 
the ideas, and, to some extent, the plans of 
Lincoln and the Republicans. Buchanan's An- 
nual Message states his thoughts fully, if not 
clearly. The following excerpts will afford 
something of an idea of his point of view : 

. . . . Why is it, then, that discontent now so 
extensively prevails, and the Union of the States, wh'ch 
is the source of all these blessings, is threatened with • 
destruction? 

The long-continued and intemperate interference of 
the Northern people with the question of slavery in 
the Southern states has at length produced its natural 
effects. The different sections of the Union are now 
arrayed against each other and the time has arrived, 
so much dreaded by the Father of his Country, when 
hostile geographical parties have been formed. , . . 

How easy would it be for the American people to 
settle the slavery question forever, and lo restore 
peace and harmony to this distracted country! . . . 
All that is necessary to accomplish the object, and all 
for which the slave states have ever contended, is to 
be let alone and permitted to manage their domestic 
institutions in their own way. As sovereign States, 
they, and they alone, are responsible b;fore God and 
the world for the slavery existing among them. . . . 

And this brings me to observe that the election of 
any one of our fellow-citizens to the office of President 



THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION. 177 

ddes not of itself afford just cause for dissolving tlie 
Union. ... In order to justify a resort to revolu- 
tionary resistance, the Federal Government must be 
guilty of "a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exer- 
cise" of powers not granted by the Constitution, 

In order to justify secession as a constitutional 
remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal 
Government is a mere voluntary association of Stat'^s. 
. . . If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, 
. . . [which] might be broken into fragments in a 
few weeks, which cost our forefathers many years of 
toil, privation, and blood to establish. 

Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the his- 
tory as well as the character of the Federal Constitu- 
tion. ... 

It [the Union] was intended to be perpetual, and not 
to be annulled at the pleasure of any one of the con- 
tracting parties. 

It may be asked, then, are the people of the States 
v/ithout redress against the tyranny and oppression 
of the Federal Government? By no means. The right 
of resistance on the part of the governed against the 
oppression of their governments cannot be denied. 
It exists independently of all constitutions. . . . 
But the distinction must ever be observed that this is 
revolution against an established government, and not 
a voluntary secession from it by virtue of an inherent 
constitutional right. In short, let us look the danger 
fairly in the face; secession is neither more nor less 
than revolution. It may or it may not be a justifiable 
revolution, but still it is revolution. . . . 

Then in speaking of the power of Congress 
or the president to coerce a State, should it 
attempt secession, he used this language: 

The question fairly stated is: Has the Constitution 
delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into 
submission which is attempting to withdraw, or has 
actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? . . . 

Buchanan argues against this power, then 
says: 



178 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

But if wn possessed this power, would it be wise to 
exercise it under existing circumstances? . . . 

The fact is, that our Union rests upon public opinion 
and can never be cemented by the blood of its citi- 
zens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affec- 
tions of the people, it must one day perish. Congress 
possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation; 
but the sword was not piaced in their hand to pre- 
serve it by force. He then proposes that Congress 
submit these amendments to the States, as follows: 

I. An express recognition of the right of property in 

slaves in the States. . . . 

II. The duty cf protecting the right in all the com- 
mon territories. . . . 

III. The like recognition of the right of the master to 
have his slave, who has escaped from one State 
to another, restored and "delivered up" to him. . . 

— Buchanan's Message, Dec. 3. I860, Cited in Curtis' 
Buchanan, II, pp. 337 f. 

Passing to the South we see that acts are 
substituted for words. Let us see what South 
Carolina did. 

An Obdinance to dissolve the Union between the 
State of South Carolina and other States united 
with her under the compact entitled "The Con- 
stitution of the United States of America." 
We, the people of the State of South Carolina in 
convention assembled, do declare and ordain, . . . 
that tbe ordinance adopted by us in convention on the 
twenty-third day of May [1788] whereby the Constitu- 
tion of the United States of America was ratified, 
. . . . [and amendments] are hereby repealed; and 
that the Union now subsisting between South Caro- 
lina and other States, under the name of the "United 
States of America," is hereby dissolved. 

Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, 
[1860], D. F. Jameson, 

Delegate from Bormoell and Pjcsidcnt of iJ/o Coiven- 

tion, and Others. 
Attest; 
Benjamin F. Arthur, 

Clerk of the Convention. 
^RcheUion Records, Series I, vol. I, p. 110. 



THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION. 179 

Two days after the passage of the above ordi- 
nance the State of South Carolina gave the 
following commission to Robert W. Barnwell, 
James H. Adams, and James L. Orr: 

WKereas tlie convention of the People of South Caro- 
lina, . . . did . . . order that their commis- 
sioners . . . proceed to Washington, authorized, 
. . . to treat with the Grovernment of the United 
States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light- 
houses, and other real estate . . . within the limits 
of South Carolina; and also for an apportioning of tha 
public debt and for a division of the other property 
held by the govermment of the United States as agent 
of the confederated States, of which South Carolina 
was recently a member; and generally to negotiate 
. . . for the continuance of peace and amity beiween 
this coanimonwealth and the Government at Wash- 
ington: . . . — Ibid, p. 111. 

On December 28, 1860, the above named com- 
missioners of South Carolina sent a communi- 
cation to the president, from which the follow- 
in extract is made: 

. . . In the execution of this trust it is our duty 
to furnish you . . . with an official copy of the 
ordinance of secession, by which the S.ate of South 
Carolina has resumed the powers she delegated to the 
Government of the United States and has declared her 
perfect sovereignty and independence. It would also 
have been our duty to have informed you that we 
were ready to negotiate with you upon all such ques • 
tions as are necessarily raised by the adoption of this 
ordinance, and that we, were prepared to enter upon 
this negotiation with the earnest desire to avoid all 
unnecsssarj and hostile collision, and so to inaugurate 
our new relations as to secure mutual respect, general 
advantage, and a future of good will and harmony. 
. . . But the ©vents of the last twanty-four hours 
render such an assurance impossible. [This was the 
taking possession of Ft. Sumter by Major Anderson.] 

And in conclusion we would urge upon you the im- 
mediate withdrawal of the troops from the harbor 



180 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

of Chari'^ston. Under present circumstances ihey are 
a standing menace which render negotiations Impossi- 
ble, and . . . threaten speedily to bring to a bloody 
issue questions which ought to be settled with tem- 
perance and judgment. — Ibid, fp. 109-110. 

Duriug the winter of 1860-'61 several plans 
were proposed to secure such amendments to 
the Constitution as would satisfy the various 
sections of the country, and thus restore har- 
mony to the Union, Congress tried its hand 
and oiitlined six propositions, which, however, 
were never sent to the states. 

On the request of the State of Virginia, a 
convention of delegates from the States of the 
Union was held in Washingt'on, commencing 
February 4th, and closing on the 27th, of the 
same month, which proposed that Congress 
submit seven Constitutional amendments to the 
States for their action. Delegates were present 
from Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massa- 
chusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, 
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, 
Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kan- 
sas, including, as delegates, such men as W. P. 
Fessenden, L. M. Morrill, Geo. S. Boutwell, 
David Dudley Field, David Wilmot, Reverdy 
Johnson, Ex-President John Tyler, S. P. Chase, 
James Harlan, and James Guthrie. Ex-Presi- 
dent Tyler, as presiding officer, closed the ses- 
sion in a speech from which these words are 
taken : 

. . . But I here declare that it has never been 
my good fortune to meet with an association of more 
intelligent, thoughtful, or patriotic men. ... I can- 
not but hope and believe that the blessing of God will 
follow and rest upon the results of your labors, and 
that such result will bring to our country that quiet 
and peace which every patriotic heart so earnestly de- 
sires. . . . 

Gentlemen, forewell! I go to finish the work you 



THE CTVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION. 181 

have assigned me, of presenting your recommendations 
to the two Houses of Congress. . . . 

May you all inculcale among your people a spirit 
of mutual forbearance and concession; and may God 
protect our country and the Union of the States, which 
was committed to us as the blood-bought legacy of our 
heroic ancestors. 

Congress did not submit the propositions as 
recommended, but instead the following action 
was taken : 

Mr. Corwin, Republican (O.), in 1861 moved 
the following amendment to the Constitution. 
This amendment was adopted in the House by 
a vote of 133 to 65, and in the Senate 21 to 12. 
It reads as follows, and was to be numbered 
thirteen: 

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution 
which will authorize or give to Congress the power 
to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the 
domestic institutions thereof, including that of per- 
sons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. 

Contrast this with the 13th Amendment as 
adopted in 1865, and one can conceive of the 
immense distance that the nation had traversed 
in the four years of the civil war. 

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as 
a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have 
been duly convicted, shall exist within the United 
States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction. — 
Constitution, Article A III of Avteiidmeiits. 

When Lincoln was inaugurated as president 
in 1861, seven of the Southern States had 
passed articles of secession, similar in terms to 
those of South Carolina cited above. Already 
the States had formed a preliminary constitu- 
tion, and had chosen officers under it. Thus 
there were two organized general governments 
in the same territory. Most of the forts and 
arsenals in the Southern States had been taken 
possession of by troops of the various States 



182 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIKS. 

in which they were situated. Under such con- 
ditions Lincoln delivered his Inaugural Ad- 
dress, from which the following extracts are 
taken : 

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of 
the Southern States that by the accession of a Repub- 
lican administration their property and their peace and 
personal security are to be endangered. There has 
never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. 
Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has 
all the while existed and been open to their inspection. 
It is found in nearly ' all the published speeches of 
him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one 
of those speeches when I declare that "I have no pur- 
pose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the in- 
stitution of slavery in the States where it exists. I 
believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have 
no inclination to do so" [I860]. Those who nominated 
and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had 
made this and many similar declarations, and had 
never recanted them. And, more than this, they 
placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a 
law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic 
resolution which I now read: 

"Rcsolicd, That the maintenance inviolate of the 
rights of the States, and especially the right of each 
State to order and control its own domestic institu- 
tions according to its own judgment exclusively, is 
essential to that balance of power on which the per- 
fection and endurance of our political fabric depend, 
and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force 
of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under 
what pretext, as among the greatest of crimes." 

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so, 
I only press upon the public attention the mo3t con- 
clusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that 
the property, peace, and security of no section are 
to be in anywise endangered by the new incoming 
administration, I add, too, that all the protection 
which, consistently with the Constitution and th^ laws 
can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States 
when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause — as cheer- 
fully to one section as to another. ... I take the 
official oath to-day with no mental reservations, and 



THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION. 183 

With no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws 
by any hypercritical rules. . . , 

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of 
the Constitution, the Union of these States is pe-^peiual. 
Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the funda- 
mental law of all national governments. . . . 

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, 
and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. 
The government will not assail you. You can have no 
conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You 
have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the gov- 
ernment, while I shall have the most solemn one to 
"preserve, protect, and defend it." 

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. 
We must not be enemies. Though passions may have 
strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. 
The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every 
battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart 
and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell 
the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely 
they will be, by the better angels of our nature. — Lin- 
coln's Inaugural Address, Works, II, pp. 1-7. 

The first great question to come before the 
new administration was connected with provis- 
ioning Fort Sumter. March 15 the president 
consulted his cabinet, with results as follows: 

Seward said: 

. . . If it were possible to peacefully provision 
Fort Sumter, of course, I should answer that it would 
be both unwise and inhuman not to attempt it. But 
the facts of the case are known to be that the attempt 
must be made with the employment of military and 
marine force, which would provoke combat, and proba- 
bly initiate civil war. . . . 

I have not hesitated to assume that the Federal 
Government is committed to maintain, preserve, and 
defend the Union— peaceably if it can, forcibly if it 
must— to every extremity. . . . 

Chase wrote: 

. . . If the attempt will so Inflame civil waj" as 
to involve an immediate necessity for the enlistment 
of armies and the expenditure of millions, I cannot 



184 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

advise it in tlie existing circumstances of ttie country 
and in the present condition of the national finances.^ 
Lincoln's Works, II, pp. 13, 15. 

The other members of the cabinet agreed 
with the above in general, except Secretary 
Blair, who was for sending aid and provisions. 
On March 29, for the second time, a written 
opinion in regard to the policy of sending an 
expedition to relieve Fort Sumter, was asked 
of each member of the cabinet. 

Mr. Seward wrote: 

The fact of preparation for such an expedition would 
inevitably transpire, and would therefore precipitate 
the war, and probably defeat the object. I do not 
think it wise to provoke a civil war beginning at 
Charleston and in rescue of an untenable position. 

Therefore, I advise against the expedition in every 
view. . . . 

Mr. Chase wrote: 

. . . I am clearly in favor of maintaining Fort 
Pickens, and just as clearly in favor of provisioning 
Fort Sumter. . . . 

Mr. Welles said: 

I concur in the proposition to send an armed force 
off Charleston with supplies of provisions, and rein- 
forcements for the garrison of Fort Sumter. . . . 

Mr. Smith answered: 

. . . Believing that Fort Sumter cannot be suc- 
cessfully defended, I regard its evacuation as a neces- 
sity, and I advise that Major Anderson's command 
shall be unconditionally withdrawn. . . . 

Mr. Blair wrote: 

. . . It is acknowledged to ba p ssble to relieve 
Fort S"mter. It ought to be relieved without refer- 
ence to Pickens or any other possession. South Caro- 
lina is the head and front of this rebellion, and when 
that State is safely delivered from the authority of 
the United States it will strike a blow against our au- 
thority from which it will take years of bloody strife 
to recover. . . . 



THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION. 185 

Mr. Bates wrote: 

[Believed in reinforcing Pickens, and] As to Fort 
Sumter, I think; the time is come either to evacuate 
or relieve it. — Lincoln's Works, II, pp. 26-28. 

Read the following letter, and think what the 
end was, and when it came, nay when it will 
come: 

Fort Sumter, S. C, April 12, 1861.-3:20 A. m. 
Sir: By authority of Brigadier-General Beauregard 
commanding the Provisional Forces of the Confederate 
States, we have the honor to notify you that he will 
open the fire of his batteries on Fort Sumter in one 
hour from this time. 

We have the honor to be, very respectfully, your 
obedient servants, 

James Chestnet, Jk., 

Aid-de-Camp. 
Stephen D. Lee, 
Captain G. 8. Army, Aid-de-Camp. 
Maj. Robert Anderson, 

U. S. Army, Commanding Fort Sumter. 
— Rebellion Records, I, p. IJf. 

Congress met on the call of the president, 
July 4. President Lincoln sent in his first mes- 
sage on that day. Some striking passages are 
here quoted: 

Lest there be some uneasiness in the minds of can- 
did men as to what is to be the course of the govern- 
ment toward the Southern States after the rebellion 
shall have been suppressed, the executive deems it 
proper to say it will be his purpose then, as ever, to 
be guided by the Constitution and the laws; and that 
he probably will have no different understanding of 
the powers and duties of the Federal Government 
relatively to the rights of the States and the people, 
under the Constitution, than that expressed in the 
inaugural address. — Lincoln's Message to Congress in 
Special Session, July If, 1861, Works, II, p 65. 

In the midst of the war, on November 19, 
1863, President Lincoln made his Gettysburg 
Address, an address which probably will live 

13 



186 AMERI(3AN HISTORY STUDIES. 

as long as the English language shall be 
spoken or read. 

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought 
forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in 
liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men 
are created equal. 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing 
whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and 
so dedicated, can long endure. We have come to dedi- 
cate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for 
those who here gave their lives that that nation might 
live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should 
do this. 

But In a larger sense we cannot dedicate — we cannot 
consecrate — we cannot hallow — this ground. The 
brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have 
consecrated it far above our poor power to add or 
detract. The world will little note nor long remem- 
ber what we say here, but it can never forget what they 
did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedi- 
cated here to the unfinished work which they who 
fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is 
rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task 
remaining before us — that from these honored dead 
we take increased devotion to that cause for which 
they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we 
here highly resolve that these dead shall not have 
died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have 
a new birth of freedom; and that government of the 
people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish 
from the earth. — Works, II, p. Jf39. 

TUB EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION. 

After citing part of the proclamation of Sep- 
tember 22, 1862, Lincoln says: 

Nor, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the 
United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as 
commcnder-in-chief of the army and navy of the 
United states, . . . and as a fit and necessary war 
measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on thi^ first 
day of January, in the year of our Lord one thoU and 
eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with 
my purpose so to do, . . . order and designate as 



THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION. 187 

the States and parts of States wherein the people 
thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against 
the United States, the following, to-wit [named] . . 
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose 
aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held 
as slaves within said designated States . . . are 
and henceforth shall be free. . . . — Lincoln's Works. 
II, pp. 287-88. 

The great question of Reconstruction began 
to agitate the minds of American statesmen as 
early as 1862. Lincoln's first State paper on 
this subject outlines his plans in a general way. 
Other quotations from later papers, which fol- 
low, will show the development of his idea. 

I recommend the adoption of a joint resolution by 
your honorable bodies Lof Congress], which shall be 
substantially as follows: 

Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate 
with any State which may adopt gradual abolishment 
of slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be 
used by such State, In its discretion, to compensate 
for the inconveniences, public and private, produced 
by such change of system. . . . 

The Federal Government would find its highest In- 
terest in such a measure, as one of the most efficient 
means of self-preservation. — Works, II, p. 129. [Both 
branches of Congress adopted this resolution by large 
majorities.] 

In December, 1862, Mr. Lincoln recommended 
three resolutions to be adopted as amendments 
to the Constitution. They were as follows: 

I. "Every State wherein slavery now exists which 
shall abolish the same therein at any time or times 
before the first day of January in the year of our 
Lord one thousand and nine hundred, shall receive 
compensation from the United States [in United States 

bonds] as follows for each slave shown to have 

been therein by the eighth census of the United States" 
. . . [so many dollars]. 

The measure is both just and economical. In a cer- 
tain sense the liberation of slaves is the destruction 
of property — property acquired by descent or by pur- 



188 AMERICAN HISTORY gTtJDIBJS. 

chase, the same as any other property. It is no less 
true for having been often said, that the people of the 
South are not more responsible for the original intro- 
duction- of this properly than are the people of the 
North; and when it is remembered how unhesitatingly 
we all use cotton and sugar and share the protits of 
dealing in them, it may not be quite safe to say that 
the South has been more responsible than the North 
for its continuance. If, then, for a common object 
this property is to be sacrificed, is it not just that it 
be done at a common charge? 

II. "All slaves who shall have enjoyed actual free- 
dom by the chances of the war at any time before the 
end of the rebellion, shall be forever free; but all 
owners of such who shall not have been disloyal shall 
be compensated for them at the same rates as are pro- 
vided for States adopting abolishment of slavery." 

III. "Congress may appropriate money and other- 
wise provide for colonizing free colored persons, with 
their own consent at any place or places without the 
United States." . . . 

I cannot make it better known than it already is, 
that I strongly favor colonization. . . . 

This plan is recommended as a means, not in ex- 
clusion of, but additional to, all others for restoring 
and preserving the national authority throughout the 
Union. The subject is presented exclusively in its 
economical aspect. The plan would, I am confident, 
secure peace more speedily, and maintain it more 
permanently, than can be done by force alone; while 
all it would cost, considering amounts, and manner 
of payment, and times of payment, would be easier 
paid than will be the additional cost of the war, if we 
rely solely upon force. It is much— very much -that 
it would cost no blood at all. . . . Other means 
may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, 
peaceful, generous, just, ... a way which, if fol- 
lowed, the world will forever applaud, and God mus( 
forever hless.—Ihhl, pp. 270-277. 

And it is suggested as not Improper that, in con^ 
structing a loyal State government in any State, the 
name of the State, the boundary, the subdivisions, the 
constitution, and the general code of laws, as before 
the rebellion, be maintained, subject only to the modi- 



THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION. 189 

fications made necessary by the conditions hereinbe- 
fore stated, and such others, if any, not contravening 
said conditions, and which may be deemed expedient. — 
Lincoln's Prod mn at ion of Avincstij and Reconstruction, 
Aug. 12, 1863, Works, II, p. U',. 

The policy of emancipation, and of employing black 
soldiers, gave to the future a new aspect, about which 
hope, and fear, and doubt contended in uncertain con- 
flict. According to our political system, as a matter 
of civil administration, the General Government had 
no lawful power to effect emancipation in any State, 
and for a long time it had been hoped that the re- 
bellion could be suppressed without resorting to it as 
a military measure. It was all the whlie deemed 
possible that the necessity for it might come, and 
that if it should, the crisis of the contest would then 
be presented. It came, and, as was anticipated, it 
was followed by dark and doubtful days. Eleveu 
months having now passed, we are permitted to take 
another review. The rebel borders are pressed still 
further back. . . . Maryland and Missouri, neither 
of which three years ago would tolerate any restraint 
upon the extension of slavery into new Territories, 
only dispute now as to the best mode of removing it 
within their own limits. . . . No servile insurrec- 
tion, or tendency to violence or cruelty, has marked 
the measures of emancipation and arming the blacks. 
These measures have been much discussed in foreign 
countries, and contemporary with such discussion the 
tone of public sentiment there is much improved. 
. . . — Lincoln's Annual Message, Dec. 8, 1863, Works, 
II, pp. 453, 454- 

Lincoln's plan of Reconstruction, as formu- 
lated December, 1863, continued to be attacked 
till the end of his life. Two days before his 
death he made his last public address, which 
was largely given over to a discussion of this 
question. In part he said: 

We meet this evening not in sorrow, but in gladness 
of heart. The evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond, 
and the surrender of the principal insurgent army, 
give hope of a righteous and speedy peace, whose joy- 
ous expression cannot be restrained. . . . 



190 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

By these recent successes the reinauguration of the 
national authority — reconstruction— which has had a 
large share of thought from the first, is pressed much 
more closely on our attention. It is fraught with great 
difficulty. . . . Nor is it a small additional embar- 
rassment that we, the loyal people, differ among our- 
selves as to the mode, etc. . . . [He then dl&cusses 
what he has done in Louisiana.] [Concerning the 
question whether the States were ever out of the 
Union] I have purposely forborne any public expres- 
sion on it. As it appears to me, that question has not 
been, not yet is, a practically material one. , . . 

We are all agreed that the seceded States, so-called, 
are out of their proper practical relation with the 
Union, and that the sole object of the government 
. . . is to again get them into that proper practical 
relation. I believe that it is not only possible, but in 
fact easier, to do this without deciding or even con- 
sidering whether these States have ever been out of 
the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely 
at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they 
had ever been abroad. . . . 

I repeat the question: Can Louisiana be brought 
into proper practical relation with the Union sooner 
by sustaining or by discarding her new State govern- 
ment? ... So new and unprecedented is the whole 
case that no exclusive and inflexible plan can safely 
be prescribed as to details and collaterals. . . . 
Important principles may and must be inflexible. In 
the present situation, as the phrase goes, it may be 
my duty to make some new announcement to the 
people of the South. I am considering, and shall not 
fail to act when satisfied that action will be proper. — 
Works. II,pp. 672-675. 

RECONSTRUCTION UNDER PRESIDENT JOHNSON. 

President Johnson began on May 29, 1865, 
to carry out a system of reconstruction which 
he always claimed was the one Lincoln had 
planned. On that date he issued an amnesty 
proclamation to all those lately in rebellion, 
with fourteen excepted classes. 

To the end, therefore, that the authority of the Gov- 



THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION. 191 

ernment of the United States may be restored, and that 
peace, order, and freedom may be established, [, An- 
drew Johnson^ President of the United States, do 
proclaim and declare that I hereby grant to all p rsons 
who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the 
existing rebellion [exceptions] amnesty and pardon, 
with restoration of all rights of property, except as to 
slaves, . . , upon the condition . . . that such 

person subscribe the following oath. ... I, 

do polemnly swear . . . that I will henceforth 

faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution 
of the United States. . . . — McPherson. Reconstruc- 
tion, pp. 9-10. 

On the same day he appointed William W. 
Holden Provisional Governor of North Carolina, 
with powers and duties as follows: 

. . . I, Andrew Johnson, ... do hereby ap- 
point William W. Holden Provisional Governor of the 
State of North Carolina, whose duty it shall be . . 
to pi'escribe such rules and regulations as may be nec- 
essary and proper for convening a convention, [and 
also] with authority to exercise ... all the powers 
necessary and proper to enable such loyal people of 
the State ... to restore said state to its constitu- 
tional relations to the Federal Government. . . . 

Similar action was taken for the other States. 

The president, by proclamation, also provided 
for the recall of the proclamations establish- 
ing martial law, blockade, the suspension of 
the Habeas Corpus, etc. In other words, dur- 
ing the summer of 1865 he had taken almost 
all the steps necessary to restore the States to 
their "practical relation" to the Union, by De- 
cember, when Congress should come together. 
Almost immediately on its assembling there 
were signs that there was to be a struggle be- 
tween Congress and the President. However 
the Congressional plan was not fully matured 
and enacted into law before March 2, 18G7. In 
the meantime the State governments set up 
under President Johnson's plan continued to 



]92 AMEUH'AN niSTORY STUDIES. 

exist with some power, but subject to suspen- 
sion whenever Congress might direct. The 
first part of the Congressional plan with which 
the President agreed was the passage of the 
13th amendment. The second part was the 
14th amendment. The great struggle, how- 
ever, came over the following law, which con- 
tains the substance of the Congressional plan 
of Keconstruction: 

Whereas, No legal State governments or adequate 
protection for life or property now exists In the rebel 
States [named], therefore, 

Be it enavted, etc.. That said rebel States shall be di- 
vided into military districts and made subject to the 
military authority of the United States . . . [Five 
districts provided for.] 

Sec. 2. That it shall be the duty of the President to 
assign to the command of each of said districts an 
officer of the army . . . and to detail a sufficient 
military force to enable such officer to perform his 
duties and enforce his authority. . . . 

Sec. 3. That it shall be the duty of each officer . . 
to suppress insurrection, disorder . . . and to this 
end he may allow civil tribunals to take jurisdiction 
of and to try offenders, or, when in his judgment it 
may be necessary for the trial of offenders, he shall 
have power to organize military commissions . . . 
for that purpose. . . . 

Sec. 4. [Speedy trials and no unusual punishments.] 

Sec. 5. That wheu the people of any one of the rebel 
States shall have formed a constitution of government 
in conformity with the Constitution of the United 
States in all respects, framed by a convention of dele- 
gates elected by the male citizens of said State, twenty- 
one years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or 
previous condition, . . . except such as may be 
disfranchised for participation in the rebellion, . . . 
and when such constitution shall provide that the 
elective franchise shall be • enjoyed by all such per- 
sons as have the qualifications herein stated for elec- 
tors . . . and when ratified by a majority vote 
[accepted by Congress] and when said State . . . 
shall have adopted the amendment, . . . known as 
fourteen, and when said article shall have become a 



Si^- 



THE CIVIL WAU AND [tKCOXSl'UUCTIO.N. 193 

part of the ConsLitu.ion of the United States . . . 
[then the State admitted to privileges of other States], 
Sec. 6. [Any existing government provisional only. 
. . .] — McPherson, Reconstruction, pp. Wl, 192. 

This bill and all other supplementary bills 
were vetoed by President Johnson, but all were 
passed over his veto, and thus became the law 
of the land. By 1870, under the series of acts 
of which the one cited is the most important, 
all the rebel States were again in full operation, 
and represented in Congress. The final outcome 
of the struggle was the impeachment of Presi- 
dent Johnson. The Senate failed to convict. 
Congress triumphed, however, in its policy. 

QUESTIONS. 

1. Was Lincoln anxious to avoid war? 2. Point out 
the real difference he notes between the North and 
the South. 3. Did he wish the Republicans to yield 
their ground? 4. Was it possible for the two sections 
to agree? 5. What phrase had Lincoln used before 
this to characterize the nature of the struggle? 6. How 
had Seward characterized it? 7. How did Lincoln feel 
toward the South? 8. Give quotations to prove your 
position. 9. What would be "coercion" of a State ac- 
cording to Lincoln? 10. What did he think the nation 
might do? 11. How did Lincoln mean to treat slavery 
in the States? 12. What did he mean by leaving them 
alone? 13. Did Lincoln seem to think war was neces- 
sary? 14. What was the matter? 15. What advice 
did he give to the people of North and South? 16. 
Could they take it? 17. Are Lincoln's positions in 
these extracts and in those given last month consistent 
with one another? 

1. How did President Buchanan explain the troubles? 
2. How could the difficulties be settled? 3. Did he be- 
lieve then in the "irrepressible conflict" doctrine? 4. 
Which proved to be right? 5. Did he believe the South 
might secede on account of President Lincoln's elec- 
tion? 6. Did he recognize the 7-ight of secession at all? 

7. How could the States get a redress of grievances? 

8. Should anything be done to permit secession? 9. 
Why not? 10. How did he propose to settle the 
trouble? 11. Compare ideas of Lincoln and Buchanan. 

1. What State passed the first Ordinance of Seces- 
sion? 2. What relation to the action of the State in 
1788? 3. Who acted for the State? 4. Apparently did 
the State expect war? 5. If not, why not? 6. What 
did the State offer to do? 7. What was to be the 
futu'-e relation? 8. Judged by the extracts given last 



194 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

month, why did secession talve place? 9. What at- 
tempt did Virginia make to prevent secession? 10. 
How far were many of the Republicans, Lincoln in- 
cluded, ready to go to prevent war? 11. Compare the 
proposed Thirteenth amendment with the existing 
one. 

1. How did Lincoln attempt to satisfy the Soutn that 
secession was not justifiiabie? 2. How did he propose 
to treat them? 3. Who would be responsible for war 
if it came? 4. Commit the last paragraph of his in- 
augural. 5. Can you find another paragraph more elo- 
quent than this? 

1. How did the Cabinet feel in regard to aiding Fort 
Sumter? 2. Why such feelings? 3. Any changes in 
sentiment between March 15 and March 29? 4. What 
is the most important letter in this number? Why? 

1. How did Lincoln propose to treat the Southern 
States after the Rebellion was suppressed? 2. What 
important thought in the Gettysburg speech? 3. Un- 
der what power did Lincoln claim the right to issue 
the Emancipation Proclamation? 4. Would Congress 
have had the same right? 5. How did Lincoln propose 
to secure the abolishment of slavery? 6. When would 
slavery have been ended by his plan? 7. What argu- 
ments did he use to sustain his plan? 8. How did the 
country first receive the Emancipation Proclamation? 
9. What did Lincoln believe in regard to the States 
having ever been out of the Union? 10. When did 
Lincoln last speak concerning Reconstruction? 11. 
What policy did President Johnson claim to follow in 
regard to Reconstruction? 12. What was the great 
difference between the Congressional plan of Recon- 
struction and President Johnson's? 13. What do you 
understand by Reconstruction? 14. Name the prin- 
cipal elements in the Congressional plan. 15. Who 
could vote in reconstructing the seceded States undei 
President Johnson's plan under the Congressional 
plan? 16. Write an essay on President Lincoln in the 
war, using only the material here given. 



A STUDY IN AMERICAN FOREIGN RELA- 
TIONS AND DIPLOMACY 



First treaty with France 1778. Franklin our 
first great diplomat. Difficulty with Genet, 
1793. Treaty of Peace, 1783— Commissioners 
Adams, Franklin, and Jay. The X. Y. Z. epi- 
sode, 1796-98. Jay's treaty with England, 1794 
—the first party struggle over foreign affairs. 
Livingston and Monroe buy Louisiana, 1803. 
Gallatin, Adams, Clay, Russell, and Bayard 
make treaty, 1814, with England. Webster- 
Ashburton treaty of 1842, settles issues with 
England. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty, 1853, 
yet under discussion. Florida treaty, 1819; 
Mexican War ends 1848, with treaty securing 
California, etc. 



CHAPTER IX 

A STUDY IN AMERICAN FOREIGN RELA- 
TIONS AND DIPLOMACY 

^INCE 1815 the development of American 
"^ political history has been only slightly 
modified by foreign influences. To a great 
extent the reason for this may be found in the 
geographical situation of the United States. 
Separated by wide oceans from any other im- 
portant nation, they have been enabled to 
pursue a self-directive course, almost as freely 
as if located on an island in the midst of the 
sea. American diplomatic history may be said 
to begin on November 29, 1775, when a motion 
was made to appoint a committee to correspond 
with '^our friends in England and elsewhere.'' 
At the moment of writing this introduction our 
nation is in the midst of the excitement due tO' 
the Cuban question, and the imminence of war 
with Spain on account of it. In 1775 Spain 
looked upon us as a band of rebels, if she con- 
descended to think of us at all. Now the 
United States has more than four times the 
population, and many times the wealth, of the 
haughty nation which then owned and con- 
trolled the larger part of this western hemi- 
sphere The importance and complexity of the 
problems arising from our foreign relations in 
1776 were almost as nothing compared with 
those that confront us to-day; yet it is un- 
doubtedly true that the course of our develop- 
ment then was much more influenced by our 
diplomatic policy than it is now. The really 
great problems are internal ones, and the Amer- 



t'OREJIGN RELATIONS AND DIPLOMACY. 19? 

lean people should ever remember this. The 
diplomatists as well as the statesmen of the 
Revolutionary period were men of vigor and 
power. Franklin, Jaj, J, Adams, and Jefferson 
proved themselves able to meet on equal terms 
the best men that France and England pos- 
sessed. A little later we find Clay, J. Q. Adams, 
and especially A. Gallatin, contending with the 
English ambassadors over the terms of the 
treaty of peace in 1814, and winning for our 
nation a decided victory. Monroe and, Adams 
in the events connected with the promulgation 
of the so-called Monroe doctrine proved them- 
selves able and skilled diplomatists, Webster, 
in the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842, gained 
the good will of Europe for the skill and dignity 
with which he managed the American cause. 

It is possible in one article to touch only a 
very few of the many events in which our nation 
has come into contact with other nations. I 
have chosen to take a few important points and 
give them a fuller treatment, rather than to 
attempt to cover the whole ground. The reader, 
therefore, must remember that these extracts 
do not touch even many of the most interesting 
questions which have confronted our statesmen 
in the past. Yet it is hoped that they may 
arouse an interest so that more of the docu- 
mentary matter pertaining to our external rela- 
tions may be called for and used. 

November 29, 1775, congress passed the fol- 
lowing resolution, which may be said to be the 
first word ever uttered by the American people 
with regard to foreign affairs: 

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed for 
the sole purpose of corresponding with our friends in 
Great Britain, Ireland, and other parts of the world; 
and that they lay their correspondence before Con- 
gress when directed. 

The members chosen were Mr. Harrison, Dr. Frank- 



198 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

lin, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dickinson, and Mr. Jay. — Secret 
Journals of the Congress of the Confederation, vol. II, 
p. 5. 

We next find our diplomatic history set forth 
in the resolutions which follow: 

[June 11, 1776.] Resolved, That a committee be ap- 
pointed to prepare a plan of treaties to be proposed to 
foreign powers. — Ihid, p. Jfl5. 

[September 17, 1776.] Congress took into considera- 
tion the plan of treaties to be proposed to foreign 
nations, with the amendments agreed to by the com- 
mittee of the whole; and thereupon. 

Resolved, That the following plan of a treaty be 
proposed to his most christian majesty: [Plan.] — 
IMd, p. 6. 

Resolved, That Thursday next be assigned for ap- 
pointing commissioners to transact the business of 
the United States at the court of France. — Ibid, p. 31. 

Resolved, That three be appointed. The ballots be- 
ing taken, Mr. B. Franklin, Mr. S. Deane, and Mr. T. 
Jefferson, were elected. — Ibid, p. 31. 

[September 28, 1776.] Resolved, That the commis- 
sioners should live in such a style and manner, at the 
court of France, as they may find suitable and neces- 
sary to support the dignity of their publick character, 
keeping an account of their expenses, which shall be 
reimbursed by the Congress of the United States of 
America. — Ibid, p. 33. 

The first alliance made by the United States 
contains, among others, the following clauses: 

The most christian king, and the United States of 
North America . . . having this day concluded a 
treaty of amity and commerce, . . , have thought 
it necessary to take into consideration the means of 
strengthening those engagements, and of rendering 
them useful to the safety and tranquility of the two 
parties; particularly in case Great Britain, in resent- 
ment . , , should break the peace with France. 
. . , And his majesty and the United States, having 
resolved, in that case, to join their counsels and ef- 
forts against the enterprises of their common enemy, 



K()1;KU;N IMCLATIONS AND DIPLOMACY. 199 

. . . have . . . concluded and determined on 

the followins; articles: 

AKT. II. The essential and direct end of the pres- 
ent defensive alliance is, to maintain effectually the 
liberty, sovereignty, and independence absolute and 
unlimited of the said United States, as well in matters 
of government as of commerce. 

Art. XL The two parties guarantee, mutually, from 
th(3 present time and forever, against all other powers, 
to-wit, the United States to his most christian majesty, 
the present possessions of the crown of France in 
America, as well as those which it may acquire by the 
future treaty of peace; and his most christian majesty 
guarantees, on his part, to the United States, their 
liberty, sovereignty, and independence, absolute and 
unlimited, as well in matters of government as of com- 
merce, and also their possessions, and the additions 
or conquests that their confederation may obtain dur- 
ing the war, from any of the dominions now or here- 
tofore possessed by Great Britain in North America, 
. . . the whole as their possession shall be affixed 
and assured to the said states at the moment of the 
cessation of their present war with England. 

Done at Paris, this 6th day of February, one thou- 
sand seven hundred and seventy-eighit. 

C. A. Gkrard. [l. s.] 

B. Franklin, [l. s.] 

Silas Deane. [l. s.] 

Arthur Lee. [l. s.] 

— Secret Journal of Congress, vol. II, pp. S2, S6. SS. 

The extracts below from the treaty of peace 
of 1783 will give ranch valuable iuformation if 
duly studied: 

In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. 

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose 
the hearts of . . . King George the Third. . . . 
and of the United States of America, to forget all past 
misunderstandings . . . have agreed upon and 
confirmed the following articles: 

Art. I. His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the 



200 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

United States, viz.: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, 
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Mary- 
land, Virginia, North 'Carolina, South Carolina, and 
Georgia, to be free, sovereign, and independent States; 
that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his 
heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the 
government, propriety, and territorial rights of. the 
same, and every part thereof. 

Art. VII. The navigation of the river Mississippi, 
from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free 
and open to the subjects of Great Britain, and the 
citizens of the United States. 

(Signed.) D. Hartley. 

John Adams. 
B. Franklin. 
John Jay. 
— United States Statutes at Large, vol. VIII, pp. 81, 83. 

The treaty of peace of 1783 was completed 
only after a long and intense struggle between 
the commissioners of the two countries. John 
Adams, in his diary, has left us a clear picture 
of the daily life and disputes, not only between 
the English and American commissioners, but 
also among the American commissioners them- 
selves. The negotiations had to do with many 
subjects. These extracts in regard to the right 
to fish off the banks of Newfoundland introduce 
us to their daily "squabbles" as well as any 
that may be chosen: 

Upon the return of the other gentlemen, Mr. 
Strachey proposed to leave out the word "right" of 
fishing, and make it "liberty." Mr. Fitzherbert said 
the word "right" was an obnoxious expression. Upon 
this I rose up and said, "Gentlemen, is there or can 
tiere be a clearer right? In former treaties, that of 
Utrecht and that of Paris,— France and England have 
claimeQ the right, and used the word. When God 
Almighty made the banks of New Foundland, at three 
hundred leagues distance from the people of America, 
and at six hundred leagues distance from those of 



fi^ORBlGN RELATIONS AND DIPLOMACY. 20l 

France and England, did He not give as good a right 
to the former as to the latter? If Heaven in the crea- 
tion gave a right it is ours at least as much as yours. 
If occupation, use, and possession, give a right, we 
have it as clearly as you. If war, and blood, and 
treasure give a right, ours is as good as yours. We 
have been constantly fighting in Canada, Cape Breton, 
and Nova Scotia, for the defense of this fishing, and 
have expended beyond all proportion more than you. 
If, then, the right cannot be denied, why should it 
not be acknowledged, and put out of dispute? Why 
should we leave room for illiterate fishermen to 
wrangle and chicane? — Life and Works of John Adams, 
vol. Ill, pp. S33, 334. 

I forgot to mention that, when we were upon the 
fishery, and Mr. Strachey and Mr. Fitzherbert were 
urging us to leave out the word "right" and substitute 
"liberty," I told them at last, in answer to their pro- 
posal, to agree upon all other articles, and leave that 
of the fishery to be adjusted at the definitive treaty. I 
never could put my hand to any articles without sat- 
isfaction about the fishery; that Congress had, three 
or four years ago, when they did me the honor to give 
me a commission to make a treaty of commerce with 
Great Britain, given me positive instructions not to 
make any such treaty without an article in the treaty 
of peace acknowledging our right to the fishery; that 
I was happy that Mr. Laurens was now present, who, 
I believed, was in Congress at the time, and must 
remember it. Mr. Laurens upon this said, with great 
firmness, that he was in the same case, and could 
never give his voice for any articles without this. Mr. 
Jay spoke up, and said, it could not be a peace, it 
would only be an insidious truce without it. — Ibid, 
p. 835. 

I have not attempted, in these notes, to do justice 
to the arguments of my colleagues, all of whom 
were, throughout the whole business, when they at- 
tended, very attentive and able, especially Mr. Jay. 
to whom the French, if they knew as much of his ne- 
gotiations as they do of mine, would very justly give 
the title with which they have Inconsiderately deco- 
rated me, that of "Le Washington de la negoeiation" : a 
very flattering compliment indeed, to which I have not 
14 



202 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

a right, but sincerely think it belongs to Mr. Jay.— > 
Ibid, p. 339. 

The X. Y. Z. episode in American history is 
perhaps well known, but it is doubtful if many 
of our students ever read an extract from the 
letters of our ministers in France, — Pinckney, 
Marshall, and Gerry, — which, when published, 
roused the American people to the highest pitch 
of excitement, and led to the production of "Hail 
Columbia." 

Citizen Minister [Mr. Monroe]: I hasten to lay be- 
fore the Executive Directory the copies of your letters 
of recall, and of the letter of credence of Mr. Pinck- 
ney, whom the President of the United States has ap- 
pointed to succeed you, in the quality of Minister 
Plenipotentiary of the United States near the French 
Republic. The Directory has charged me to notify 
you "that it will not acknowledge nor receive another 
Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States, until 
after the redress of grievances demanded of the Ameri- 
can Government, and which the French Republic has 
a right to expect from it." — Bcnion, Ahndyment of De- 
bet te^ in Congress, vol. II, p. 390. 

The following extracts may make more evi- 
dent why the cry ''Millions for defense, not a 
cent for tribute," became such a phrase to con- 
jure with in the years 1797-1800: 

In the evening of the same day, M. X called on 
General Pinckney, and after having sat some time 

. . whispered him that he had a message from 
M. Talleyrand to communicate when he was at leisure. 
General Pinckney immediately withdrew with him 
into another room, and said . . . that he had been 
acquainted with M. Talleyrand, , . . and that he 
was sure that he had a great regard for [America] 
and its citizens; and was very desirous that a recon- 
ciliation be brought about with France, that, to effect 
that end, he was ready, if it was thought proper, to 
suggest a plan, confidentially, that M. Talleyrand 
expected would answer the purpose. General Pinck- 
ney said he would be glad to hear it. M. X replied 



FOREIGN RELATIONS AND DIPLOMACY. 203 

that the Directory, and particularly two of the mem- 
bers of it, were exceedingly irritated at some passages 
of the President's speech, and desired that they should 
be softened, and that this step would be necessary 
previous to our reception. That, besides this, a sum 
of money was required for the pocket of the Directory 
and Ministers, which would be at the disposal of M. 
Talleyrand; and that a loan would also be insisted on. 
M. X said if we acceded to these measures, M. Talley- 
rand had no doubt that all our differences with France 
might be accommodated. On inquiry, M. X. could not 
point out the particular passages of the speech that 
had given offence, nor the quantum of the loan, but 
mentioned that the douceur for. the pocket was twelve 
hundred thousand livres, about fifty thousand pounds 
sterling.— /?>i(Z, p. 393. 

About twelve we received another visit from M. 
X. He immediately mentioned the great event an- 
nounced in the papers, and then said, that some pro- 
posals from us had been expected on the subject on 
which we had before conversed; that the Directory 
were becoming impatient, and would take a decided 
course with regard to America, if we could not soften 
them. 

M. X. again expatiated on the power and violence 
o:' France; he urged the danger of our situation, and 
pressed the policy of softening them, and of thereby 
obtaining time. M. X. again returned to the subject 
of money. Said he, you do not speak to the point; it 
is money; it is expected that you will offer money. 
We said that we had spoken to that point very ex- 
plicitly; we had given an answer. No, said he, you 
have not; what is your answer? We replied no; no; 
not a sixpence.— Oct 27, 1707.— Ibid, p. 395. 

This extract from McMaster's "History of the 
American People" shows the excitement, and 
narrates the events which led to the production 
of "Hail Columbia": 

. . . Politics ruled the hour. The city was full 
of excited Federalists, who packed the theatre night 
after night for no other purpose that to shout them- 
selves hoarse over the "President's March." He [the 



204 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

plaj'or at the theatre] determined to make use of this 
fact. He would take the March, find some one to write 
a few patriotic stanzas to suit it, and, on the night 
of his benefit, sing them to the house. Some Federal- 
ists were consulted, were pleased with the idea, and 
named Joseph Hopkinson as the best man fitted to 
write the words. He consented and in a few hours 
"Hail, Columbia" was produced. — McM aster, History of 
the People of the United States, vol. II, p. 378. 

This is an example of the ''poetry" that the 
X. Y. Z. affair called forth. There is au abun- 
dance of like matter in the newspapers of the 
day: 

The President, with good intent. 

Three envoys sent to Paris, 
But Cinq Tetes would not with 'em treat. 
Of honor France so base is. 

Yankee Doodle (mind the tune) 

Yankee Doodle Dandy. 
If Frenchmen come . . . 
We'll spank 'em hard and handy 

Thro' X. and Y., and Madame Sly, 

They made demand for money; 
For, as we're told, the French love gold' 

As stinging bees love honey. 
Chorus. 

Bold Adams did in '76 

Our Independence sign, sir, 
And he will not give up a jot, 
Tho' all the world combine, sir. 
Chorus. 

—IMd, p. SS4. 

We may get a few thoughts in regard to the 
causes of the war of 1812 from the message of 
President Madison of June 1, 1812, sent to Con- 
gress recounting the acts of the British govern- 
ment during the years 1803-1812. He says, in 
part: 

British cruisers have been in the continued practice 
of violating the American flag on the great highway 



FOREIGN RELATIONS AND DIPLOMACY. 205 

of nations, and of seizing and carrying off persons 
sailing under it, not in the exercise of a belligerent 
right founded on the law of nations against an enemy, 
but cf a municipal prerogative over British subjects. 

British cruisers have been in the practice also of 
violating the rights and the peace of our coasts.. They 
hover over and harass our entering and departing 
commerce. To the most insulting pretensions they 
have added the most lawless proceedings in our very 
harbors, and have wantonly spilt American blood 
within the sanctuary of our territorial jurisdiction. 

Under pretended blockades, without the presence 
of an adequate force and sometimes without the prac- 
ticability of applying one, our commerce has been 
plundered in every sea, the great staples of our country 
have been cut off from their legitimate markets, and 
a destructive blow aimed at our agricultural and mari- 
time interests. . . . 

Such is the spectacle of injuries and indignities 
which have been heaped on our country, and such the 
crisis which its unexampled forbearance and concilia- 
tory efforts have not been able to avert. 

Other counsels have prevailed. Our moderation and 
conciliation have had no other effect than to encourage 
perseverance and to enlarge pretensions. We behold 
our seafaring citizens still the daily victims of lawless 
violence, committed on the great common and high- 
way of nations, even within sight of the country which 
owes them protection. 

Whether the United States shall continue passive 
under these progressive usurpations and these accumu- 
lating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense 
of their national rights shall commit a just cause into 
the hands of the Almighty Disposer of events, avoid- 
ing all connections which might entangle it in the 
contest or views of other powers, and preserving a con- 
stant readiness to concur in an honorable re-estab- 
lishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question 
which the Constitution wisely confides to the legis- 



206 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

lative 'Jepartment of the Government. In recom- 
mending it to their early deliberations I am happy in 
the assurance that the decision will be worthy the 
enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a 
free, and a powerful nation. — Richardson, Messages and 
Papers of the Presidents, vol. I, pp. 500, 50^. 

Henry Clay, in a speech in the House of Rep- 
resentatives on the New Army Bill, January 8, 
1813, gives us a good picture of the point of 
view of the "Young Republicans" of the West 
and South: 

The war was declared, because Great Britain arro- 
gated to herself the pretension of regulating our for- 
eign trade, under the delusive name of retaliatory or- 
ders in council — a pretension by which she undertook 
to proclaim to American enterprise, "thus far shalt 
thou go and no further" — orders which she refused to 
revoke, after the alleged cause of their enactment had 
ceased; because she persisted in the practice of im- 
pressing American seamen; because she had instigated 
the Indians to commit hostilities against us; and be- 
cause she refused indemnity for her past injuries upon 
our commerce. I throw out of the question other 
wrongs. The war in fact was announced, on our part, 
to meet the war which she was waging on her part. 
So undeniable were the causes of the war, so power- 
fully did they address themselves to the feelings of the 
whole American people, that when the bill was pend- 
ing before this house, gentlemen in the opposition, 
although provoked to debate, would not, or could not, 
utter one syllable against it. — Mallory, Life of Clay, 
xol. I, p. 30^. 

And who is prepared to say, that American seamen 
shall be surrendered as victims to the British princi- 
ple of impressment? And, sir, what is this principlef 
She contends, that she has a right to the services of 
her own subjects, and that, in the exercise of this 
right, she may lawfully impress them, even although 
she finds them in American vessels, upon the high 
seas, without her jurisdiction. Now I deny thai she 
has any right, beyond her jurisdiction, to come on 
board our vessels, upon the high seas, for any other 
purpose, than in pursuit of enemies, or their goods, 



FOREIGN RELATIONS AND DIPI.OMAUY. 207 

or goods contraband of war. But she further contends, 
that her subjects cannot renounce their allegiance to 
her, and contract a new obligation to other sover- 
eigns. \ do not mean to go into the general question 
of the right of expatriation. If, as is contended, all 
nations deny it, all nations at the same time admit and 
practice the right of naturalization. Greai Britain 
herself does this. Great Britain, in the very case of 
foreign seamen, imposes, perhaps, fewer restraints 
upon naturalization than any other nation. Then, if 
subjects cannot break their original allegiance, they 
may, according to universal usage, contract a new 
allegiance. What is the effect of this double obliga- 
tion? Undoubtedly, that the sovereign, having pos- 
session of the subject, would have the right to the 
services of the subject. — Ibid, p. 307. 

If Great Britain desires a mark by which she can 
know her own subjects, let her give them an ear mark. 
The colors that float from the mast-head should be 
the credentials of our seamen. There is no safety to 
us, and the gentlemen have been shown it, but in the 
rule, that all who sail under the flag (not being ene- 
mies) are protected by the flag. It is impossible that 
this country should ever abandon the gallant tars, 
who have won for us such splendid trophies. — Ibid, 
p. SOS. 

The disasters of the war admonish us, we are told, 
of the necessity of terminating the contest. If our 
achievements by land have been less splendid than 
those of our intrepid seamen by water, it is not be- 
cause the American soldier is less brave. On the 
one element, organization, discipline, and a thorough 
knowledge of their duties, exist, on the part of the 
officers and their men. On the other, almost every- 
thing is yet to be acquired. We have, however, the 
consolation that our country abounds with the richesC 
materials, and that in no instance, when engaged in 
action, have our arms been tarnished. — Ibid, p. 312. 

What cause, Mr. Chairman, which existed for de- 
claring the war has been removed? We sough!; in- 
demnify for the past and security for the future. The 
orders !~ council are suspended, not revoked; no com- 
pensation for spoliations; Indian hostilities, which 
were before secretly instigated, are now openly en- 



208 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

couraged; and the practice of impressment unremit- 
tingly persevered in and insisted upon. Yet the ad- 
ministration has given the strongest demonstrations 
of its love of peace. On the twenty-ninth of June, 
less than ten days after the declaration of war, the 
secretary of the state writes to Mr. Russell, authoriz- 
ing him to agree to an armistice, upon two conditions 
only, and what are they? That the orders in council 
should be repealed, and the practice of impressing 
American seamen cease, those already impressed being 
released. The proposition was for nothing more than 
a real truce; that the war should in fact cease on both 
sides.— /6id, p. 313. 

No, sir, the administration has erred in the steps 
which it has taken to restore peace, but its error has 
been, not in doing too little, but in betraying too great 
a solicitude for that event. An honorable peace is 
attainable only by an efficient war. My plan would be 
to call out the ample resources of the country, give 
them a judicious direction, prosecute the war with 
the utmost vigor, strike wherever we can reach the 
enemy, at sea or on land, and negotiate the terms of 
peace at Quebec or Halifax. We are told that Eng- 
land is a proud and lofty nation, which, disdaining to 
wait for danger, meets it half way. Haughty as she 
is, we once triumphed over her, and, if we do not listen 
to the councils of timidity and despair, we shall again 
prevail. In such a cause, with the aid of Providence, 
we must come out crowned with success, but if we 
fail, let us fail like men, lash ourselves to our gallant 
tars, and expire together in one common struggle, 
fighting for Free Trade and Seamen's Rights. — Ibid, 
p. 3U. 

The Seminole war and Jackson's invasion of 
Florida in 1817-18 led ultimately to political 
animosities among American statesmen that in- 
fluenced in no slight manner the development 
of its political history. The following extracts 
from Clay's speeches on the Seminole war will 
throw some light on the hatred which in later 
years existed between him and General Jackson. 
In part he said, January 17, 1819: 



FOREIGN RELATIONS AND DIPLOMACY. 20D 

General Jackson says that when he received tbat 
letter, he no longer hesitated. No, sir, he did qo 
longer hesitate. He received it on the twenty-third, 
he was in Pensacola on the twenty-fourth, and imme- 
diately after set himself before the fortress of San 
Carlos de Barancas, which he shortly reduced Veni, 
vidi, vici. Wonderful energy! Admirable promnti- 
tude! Alas, that it had not been an energy and a 
promptitude within the pale of the Constitution and 
according to the orders of the chief magistrate. — Mul- 
lory. Life of Clay, vol. I, p. IfJfO. 

That the President thought the seizure of the Span- 
ish posts was an act of war, is manifest through his 
opening message, in which he says that, to have re- 
tained them, would have changed our relations with 
Spain, to do which the power of the executive was 
incompetent. Congress alone possessing it. The Presi- 
dent has, in this instance, deserved well of his coun- 
try. He has taken the only course which he could 
have pursued, consistent with the Constitution of the 
land. And I defy the gentleman to make good both 
his positions, that the general was right in taking, and 
the President right in giving up, the posts. — Ibkl, 

p. W- 

Recall to your recollection the free nations which 
have gone before us, where are they now? 

'"Gone glimmering through the dreams of things that 

were, 
A school boy's tale, the wonder of an hour." 

And how have they lost their liberties? 

I hope not to be misunderstood; I am far from 
Intimating that General Jackson cherishes any de- 
signs inimical to the liberties of the country. I be- 
lieve, his intentions to be pure and patriotic. I thank 
God that he would not, but I thank Him still more that 
he could not if he would, overturn the liberties of the 
republic. But precedents, if bad, are fraught with 
the most dangerous consequences. — Ihid, p. Ji43. 

I hope our happy form of government is to be per- 
petual. But, if it is to be preserved, it must be by 
the practice of virtue, by justice, by moderation, by 
magnanimity, by greatness of soul, by keeping a 



210 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

watchful and steady eye on the executive; and, above 
all, by holding to a ttrict accountability the military 
branch of the public force. 

Beware how you forfeit this exalted character. 
Beware how you give a fatal sanction, in this infant 
period of our republic, scai-cely yet tw^o score years 
old, to military iusuborriination. Remember that 
Greece had her Alexander, Rome her Ocesar, England 
her Cromwell, Franco ber Bonaparte, and that if we 
would escape the rock on which they split, w» must 
avoid their errors.— /&«?, p. ^//.^. 

The purchase of Flodda was not made with- 
out a word of eriticism concerning its terms 
from Clay. In a speech on the treaty, April 3, 
1820, he uses these words: 

We wanted Florida, or rather we shall want it; or, 
to speak more correctly, we want nobody else to have 
it. We do not desire it for immediate use. It fills a 
space in our imagination, and we wish it to complete 
the arrondissetnent of our territory. It must certainly 
come to us. The ripened fruit will not more surely 
fall. Florida is enclosed in between Alabama and 
Georgia, and cannot escape. Texas may. Whether 
we get Florida now, or some five or ten years hence, 
it is of no consequence, provided no other power gets 
it. — Mallory, p. 457. 

The next [proposition] was, that it was inexpedient 
to cede Texas to any foreign power. They constituted, 
in his opinion, a sacred inheritance of posterity, which 
we ought to preserve unimpaired. He wished it was, 
if it w^ere not, a fundamental and inviolable law of the 
land, that they should be inalienable to any foreign 
yower. It was quite evident that it was in the order 
u>t Providence; that it was an inevitable result of the 
principle of population, that the whole of this conti- 
nent, including Texas, was to be peopled in process of 
time. The question was, by whose race shall it l^- 
peopled? In our hands it will be peopled by freeme>' 
and the sons of freemen, carrying with them our la.v 
guage, our laws, and our liberties; establishing on th>* 
prairies of Texas, temples dedicated to the simple an^ 
devout modes of worship of God incidert to our relij? 



FOREIGN RELATIONS AND DIl'LOMACY. 2 ) I 

ion, and temples dedicated to that freedom which we 
adore next to Him. In the hands of others, it may be- 
come the habitation of despotism and of slaves, sub- 
ject to the vile dominion of "the inquisition and of 
superstition. — IJjid, p. Ji59. 

The Monroe Doctrine, so-called, has become 
so vast that a volume Is needed to present it in 
its entirety. However, it is believed that the 
following extracts taken from the messages of 
the Presidents and other documents will serve 
to throw more light on the subject than can be 
obtained from our ordinary school history, 
hence they are given in the hope that every 
teacher will try to find more illustrative matter. 
The first extracts are from the articles of agree- 
ment of the members of the Holy Alliance: 

Their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of 
Prussia, and the Emperor of Russia, in consequence of 
the great events [of years 1789-1815] . . . have, 
therefore, agreed to the following articles: 

Art. I. In conformity to the words of the Holy Scrip- 
tures, which command all men to regard one another 
as brethren, the three contracting monarchs will re- 
main united by the bonds of a true and indissoluble fra- 
ternity; . . . and they will lend one another . . . 
assistance, aid, and support; and, regarding the subjects 
and armies, as the fathers of their families, they will 
govern them in the spirit of fraternity with which they 
are animated, for the protection of religion, peace, and 
justice. 

Art. II. Therefore, the only governing principle be- 
tween the above mentioned governments . . . 
shall be that of rendering reciprocal services; of testi- 
fying, . . . the mutual affection with which they 
ought to be animated; of considering all as only the 
members of one Christian nation, the three allied 
powers looking upon themselves as delegated hij Provi- 
dence to govern three branches of the same family, to- 
wit: Austria, Prussia, and Russia, confessing . . 
that thi* Christian nations . . . have really no 
other sovereign than Him to whom alone power be- 
long? of right. . . . Their majesties, therefore, 
recommend, ... to fortify themselves every day 



212 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

more and more in the principles and exercise of the 
duties which the Divine Savior has pointed out to us. 
Art. III. All powers which wish solemnly to profess 
the sacred principles which have delegated this act, 
and who shall acknowledge how important it is to the 
happiness of nations, too long disturbed, that the^e 
truths shall henceforth exercise upon human destinies, 
all the influence which belongs to them, shall be re- 
ceived with as much readiness as affection, into this 
holy alliance. — Cited in American Diplomacy, Snow, 
p. 243. 

In 1822, at a congress held at Verona, the 
Holy Allies added secretly the following clauses 
to their articles of agreement cited above: 

The undersigned, specially authorized to make some 
additions to The Treaty of the Holy Alliance, . . . 
have agreed as follows: 

Art. I. The high contracting powers being con- 
vinced that the system of representative government is 
equally as incompatible with the monarchical princi- 
ples as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people 
with the divine right, engage mutually, ... to 
use all their efforts to put an end to the system of 
representative governments, in whatever country it 
may exist in Europe, and to prevent its being intro- 
duced in those countries where it is not yet known. 

Art. II. As it cannot be doubted that the liberty of 
the press is the most powerful means used by the pre- 
tended supporters of the rights of nations, to the detri- 
ment of those Princes, the high contracting parties 
promise reciprocally to adopt all proper measures to 
suppress it, not only in their own states, but, also. In 
the rest of Europe. — Snoio, American Diplomacy, p. 245. 

The Monroe Doctrine may be seen to have 
been foreshadowed long before its official pro- 
mulgation by Monroe by a perusal of the fol- 
lowing quotation: 

Our detached and distant situation invites and en- 
ables us to pursue a different course. If we remain 
one people, under an efficient government, the period 
is not far off when we may defy material injury from 
external annoyance; when we may take such aa atti- 



FOREIGN RELATIONS AND DITLOMACY. 213 

tude a» will cause the neutrality we may at any time 
resolve jpon to be scrupulously respected; when bel- 
ligerent nations, under the impossibility of making 
acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving 
us provocation; when we may choose peace or war as 
our interests, guided by justice, shall counsel. — Wash- 
ington's Fareicetl Address. 

Jeflferson, in 1808, speaks as follows: 
We consider their interests and ours as the same, 
and that the object of both must be to exclude all 
European influence from this hemisphere. — Jefferson's 
Works, vol. y, p. 381. 

In 1823 Jefferson writes to Monroe in these 
words: 

Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never 
to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe. Our 
second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis- 
Atlantic affairs. America, North and South, has a 
set of interests distinct from those of Europe, and 
peculiarly her own. She should therefore have a sys- 
tem of her own, separate and apart from that of Eu- 
rope. While the last is laboring to become the domi- 
cile of despotism, our endeavor should surely be to 
make our hemisphere that of freedom. — Jefferson's 
Works, vol. YII, p. 315. 

Monroe formulates the doctrine in this way 
in his celebrated message of December 2, 1823: 

In the discussion to which this interest has given 
rise, and in the arrangements by which they may 
terminate, the occasion has been adjudged proper for 
asserting, as a principle in which the rights and in- 
teresta of the United States are involved, that the 
American continents, by the free and independent 
condition which they have assumed and maintain, 
are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for 
future colonization by any European powers. — Rich- 
ardson. Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. II, 
p. 207 f. 

The political system of the allied powers is essen- 
tially different in this respect from that of America. 
This difference proceeds from that which exists in 
their respective governments. And to the defense of 



214 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

our own, . . . this whole nation is devoted. We 
owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable rela- 
tions existing between the United States and those 
powers, to declare, that we should consider any at- 
tempt on their part to extend their system to any 
portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace 
and safety. — Ibid. 

In the war between those new governments and 
Spain, we declared our neutrality at the time of their 
recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall 
continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur 
which. In the judgment of the competent authorities 
of this government, shall make a corresponding 
change on the part of the United States indispensable 
to their security. — Ibid. 

It is impossible that the allied powers should extend 
their political system to any portion of either con- 
tinent without endangering our peace and happiness; 
nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if 
left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. 
It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should be- 
hold such Interposition, in any form, with indiffer- 
ence. — Ibid. 

Ppesident Cleveland, in his message to Con- 
gress December 17, 1895, applied the Monroe 
Doctrine to the Venezuelan question. Between 
the farewell message of Washington and the 
present moment the idea has been in process of 
development. Trace its evolution. 

[It is claimed] that the reasons justifying an appeal 
to the doctrine enunciated by President Monroe are 
generally inapplicable "to the state of things in which 
we live at the present day," and especially inapplica- 
ble to a controversy involving the boundary line be- 
tween Great Britain and Venezuela. 

Without attempting extended arguments in reply 
to this position, it may not be amiss to suggest that 
the doctrine upon which we stand is strong and sound 
because its enforcement is important to our peace and 
safety as a nation and is essential to the integrity of 
our free institutions and the tranquil maintenance 
of our distinctive form of government. It was in- 



FOREIGN RELATIONS AND DIPLOMACY. 215 

tended to apply to every stage of our national life and 
cannot become obsolete while our republic endures. 

It is also suggested in the British reply that we 
should seek not to apply the Monroe doctrine to the 
pending dispute, because it does not embody any 
principle of international law which "is founded on 
the general consent of nations." . . . 

Practically, the principle for which we contend has 
peculiar if not exclusive relations to the United States. 
It may not have been admitted in so many words to 
the code of international law, but since in international 
councils every nation is entitled to the rights belong- 
ing to it, if the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine 
is something we may justly claim, it has its place in 
the code of international law as certainly and securely 
as If it were specifically mentioned. . . . The 
Monroe doctrine finds its recognition in those prin- 
ciples of international law which are based upon the 
theory that every nation shall have its rights pro- 
tected and its just claims enforced. 

Assuming, however, that the attitude of Venezuela 
will remain unchanged, the dispute has reached such 
a stage as to make it now incumbent upon the United 
States to take measures to determine with sufficient 
certainty for its justification what is the true divis- 
ional line between the republic of Venezuela and Brit- 
ish Guiana. 

In order that such an examination might be prose- 
cuted in a thorough and satisfactory manner, I suggest 
that the Congress make an adequate appropriation 
for the expenses of a commission to be appointed by 
the executive who shall make the necessary investi- 
gation. . . . "When such report is made and ac- 
cepted it will, in my opinion, be the duty of the 
United States to resist by every means in its power 
as a wilful aggression upon its rights and interests 
the appropriation by Great Britain of any lands or 
the exercise of governmental jurisdiction over any 
territory which after investigation we have deter- 
mined of right belongs to Venezuela. 

I am, nevertheless, firm in my conviction that 



216 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

while it is a grievous thing to contemplate the two 
great English-speaking peoples of the world as being 
otherwise than friendly competitors in the onward- 
march of civilization and strenuous worthy rivals in all 
the arts of peace, there is no calamity which a great 
nation can invite which equals that which follows a 
supine submission to wrong and injustice and the 
consequent loss of national self-respect and honor 
beneath which is shielded and defended a people's 
safety and greatness. — Nebraska State Journal, Decem- 
ber IS, 1895, 

QUESTIONS. 

1. Who acted as the first Secretaries of State for the 
United States? 2. How were they chosen? 3. What 
their duties? 4. How were treaties to be prepared? 
5. Who were the first foreign ministers? 4. Who ap- 
pointed them? 7. How were they to live? 8. Why 
were they to live in such a style? 9. With what na- 
tion did we form the first treaty? 10. What guaran- 
tees did France and the United States mutually make? 
11. What was the leading object of the treaty? 

1. What peculiar statements do you find in the treaty 
of peace of 1783? 2. Who were acknowledged inde- 
pendent? 3. Find out why the navigation of the 
Mississippi river was to remain forever free to both 
nations. 4. How did John Adams feel in regard to 
the fisheries. 5. Summarize his arguments. 6. Was 
he ready to abandon the fisheries? 7. Whom did 
Adams regard as the ablest of the commissioners? 
8. What title had the French given him? 9. Did he 
believe he deserved it? 

1. Why was Mr. Monroe told that France did not in- 
tend to receive at present another minister from the 
United States? 2. Find out who the Directory were. 
3. Why the cry "millions for defense, not a cent for 
tribute"? 4. Why the name X. Y. Z. to the diSiculty 
with France, 1798-'99? 5. How did "Hail Columbia" 
come to be written? 6. What do you think of the 
"poetry" of 1798? 7. What did the Americans evi- 
dently think of the French at this time? 8. Name the 
causes of the war of 1812. 9. What does Clay mean 
by British principle of impressment? 10. Could a per- 
son be a citizen of two states at once? 11. If so which 
should protect him? 12. How did Clay feel in regard 
to war? 13. How about making peace in 1813? 

1. What had Jackson done that made Clay so sar- 
castic in his speech of January 17, 1819? 2. Did Clay 
fear Jackson? 3. Where did he get his model for his 
sentence beginning "Remember that Greece had her 
Alexander," etc.? 4. Did Clay wish to purchase 
Florida in 1820? 5. Was there any other territory 
he preferred; why? 



t'OREiGN RELATIONS AND DIPLOMACY. 2l7 

1. What principles did the Holy Allies hold? 2. 
Who were the Holy Allies? 3. Why had they formed 
the holy alliance? 4. What principles of government 
did the Holy Allies intend to destroy? 5. How did 
they regard the liberty of the press? 6. Who first set 
forth some of the ideas in the Monroe Doctrine? 7. 
What idea does Jefferson add? 8. What did Jefferson 
believe were the differences in government between 
Europe and America? 9. What doctrines does Mon- 
roe set forth in his message of December 2, 1823? 10. 
What did he mean by their "political system"? 11. 
How did President Cleveland interpret the Monroe 
Doctrine? 12. To what question did he apply it? 13. 
Is is a part of international law? 14. Write a paper 
on the growth of the Monroe Doctrine. 15. Is it appli- 
cable now to the Cuban issue? 



15 



A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY 



National Banks, 1791, 1816, 1863. Great tariff 
laws; for revenue— 1789, 1846, 1857; for protec- 
tion— 1824, 1828, 1832, 1842, 1864, 1868,1890, 1898; 
as compromise— 1833. Internal improvements- 
reports for 1808, 1817; debates on, 1817, 1822; 
vetoes, 1817, 1822, 1830, 1846, etc. Issues— bank, 
both on constitutionality and expediency; tariff 
—the same, as also the same in regard to inter- 
nal improvements. Great struggle over the 
bank, 1832-34, between Jackson and the bank. 



CHAPTER X 

A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY 

HIS number of our studies, the last of this 
series, will aim to give a little insight 
into the history of the tariff, and the 
movement for internal improvements. It has 
been thought better to confine our study to 
these two topics, so that the treatment might 
be complete enough to give a fair idea of their 
development, rather than to try to cover in a 
less thorough manner the whole field. At the 
best the matter selected can only be held to be 
supplementary; however it is thought that few, 
if any, of our ordinary school histories contain 
as complete a treatment. Besides the chief 
advantage claimed for these studies is not so 
much that they give a greater amount of knowl- 
edge, but that they afford the means whereby 
the student may be enabled to work out his 
history to a great extent for himself. The 
thought must be present, or the student cannot 
do anything. He cannot be a mere memory 
machine. 

These studies come down only to the time of 
the civil war. By leaving out the more recent 
years it has been hoped that prejudice might 
play a less important part, and reason and calm 
judgment a greater part. The tariff has been 
treated in the main from the standpoint of pro- 
tection versus free trade. As this is still a con- 
troverted question, it needs to be handled with 
care in order that the student may look at the 
past, from a fair and free minded standp,oint. 
The ''question of internal improvements^ has 
passed so far into limbo that there seems to be 



A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY. 221 

no danger in wrong ideas being gained by car- 
rying present prepossessions into a study of 
past times. 

I shall not outline tbese subjects in my intro- 
ductory remarks, for I believe the extracts and 
the questions on them will accomplish the end 
sought in the general summary; and thus the 
results will be more completely the student's 
own work. There is always present a tendency 
in the puj)il ti^ find in the documents what the 
collator has found, or believes he has found. 
In this number there will be no suggestions. 
Each teacher, therefore, may work with his 
pupils uninfluenced by any suggestions of mine. 

I. The Tariff. 

The following extracts from the laws of Eng- 
land will help us to understand the early feel- 
ing of the statesmen of the United States in 
regard to any restrictions on the right to manu- 
facture and to trade. 

[1699 it was declared to be] unlawful to load wool 
upon any horse, cart, or other carriage. 

[1750.] Whereas, The importation of bar iron from 
His Majesty's colonies in America, into the port of Lon- 
don, . . . will be a great advantage, not only to 
the said colonies, but also to this kingdom, by furnish- 
ing the manufacturers of iron with a supply of that 
useful and necessary commodity, and by means thereof 
large sums of money, now annually paid for iron to 
foreigners, will be saved to this Kingdom, and a greater 
quantity of the woolen, and other manufactures of 
Great Britain, will be exported to America, in exchange 
for such iron so imported: . . . Be it therefore en- 
acted, eto. 

Sec. IX. And that pig and bar iron made in his 
Majesty's colonies in America may be further manufac- 
tured in this Kingdom; be it further enacted that 
. . . no mill or other engine for slitting or rolling of 
iron, or any plateing forge to work with a tilt hammer, 
or any furnace for making steel, shall be erected, or 
after such erection, continue in any part of his Majesty's 
colonies in America. . . . 



222 AMERICAK HISTORY STUDIES. 

Sec. X. And it is hereby enacted . . . that every 
such mill, engine, forge, or furnace so erected or con- 
tinued contrary to the directions of this Act, shall be 
deemed a common nuisance, and within thirty days 
must be abated. — Cited in Elliott's Tariff Controversy, 
p. 13. 

About 1760, when it was proposed by some to 
restore Canada to France, Franklin protests 
and uses the following argument to convince 
the English manufacturing and commercial in- 
terests that it will be for their interests to 
retain Canada. It will be noticed that Frank- 
lin speaks as an Englishman: 

A people spread through the whole tract of country 
on this side of the Mississippi, and secured by Canada 
in our hands, would probably for some centuries find 
employment in agriculture, and thereby free us at home 
effectually from our fears of American manufactures. 
. . . Manufactures are founded in poverty. . . . 
But no man who can have a piece of land of his own 
sufficient by his labor to subsist his family in plenty, 
is poor enough to be a manufacturer and work for a 
master. Hence while there is land enough in America 
for our own people, there can never be manufactures 
to any amoimt or value. — Franklin, Works, III, p. 86. 

In 1776, in a letter to Mr. Hartley, in speak- 
ing of the terms of peace between England and 
the United States. Franklin said: 

Restraint on the freedom of commerce and inter- 
course between us can afford no advantage equivalent 
to the mischief they will do by keeping up ill-humor 
and promoting a total alienation, — Works, Till, p. 387. 

In 1787 he wrote: 

We shall, as you suppose, have imposts on trade and 
custom-houses, not because other nations have them, 
but because we "cannot at present do without them. 
. . . When we are out of debt we may leave our 
trade free, for our ordinary charges of government will 
not bo great. — Works, IX, p. ffOO. 

Jefferson wrote in his "J^otes on Virginia," iq 
JT§1, Sis follows; 



A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY. 223 

Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people 
of God, if ever he had a chosen people. . . . While 
we have land to labor, then, let us never wish to see 
our citizens occupied at bench work, or twirling a dis- 
taff. Carpenters, masons, and smiths, are wanting in 
husbandry; but for the general operations of manu- 
facture, let our workshops remain in Europe. — Jefferson, 
Works, Till, p. Jf05. 

Seven years later we find these words: 
In general, it is impossible that manufactures should 
succeed in America, from the high prices of labor. 
This is occasioned by the great demand of labor for 
agriculture. — Ibid, II, p. 412. 

John Adams, in 1780, gives us this picture of 
his expectations: 

America is the country of raw materials, and of com- 
merce enough to carry them to a good market; but 
Europe is the country for manufactures and commerce. 
Thus Europe and America will be blessings to each 
other, if some malevolent policy does not frustrate the 
purposes of nature. — J. Adams' Works, Til, p. 309. 

Let the following quotation answer whether 
he believed this "malevolent policy" had 
triumphed or not. On learning, in 1783, that 
the English had forbidden all trade with the 
British West Indies except in British vessels, 
he wrote: 

This proclamation is issued in full coniidence that 
the United States have no confidence in one another; 
that they cannot agree to act in a body as one nation; 
that the,> cannot agree upon any navigation act which 
may be common to the thirteen States. Our proper . 
remedy would be to confine our exports to American 
ships.— Ibid, VIII, p. 97. 

July 19, 1785, he wrote: 

Whether pi'ohibitions or high duties will be most 
politic is a great question. — Ibid, p. 282, 

August 10, of the same year, he wrote to Jay 
as follows: 
^s the French court has condescended to adopt p\;f 



224 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

principle in theory, T am very much afraid •^ic shall be 
Dbliged to imitate their wisdo^J in practice [and import 
only in our own vessels] .... We tiave hitherto 
beer the bub4»les of our own vhiljsophical and equita- 
ble liberality: . . . both F^'anje and England hat 3 
shown a co^staut disposriitioti to take t selfish and 
partial advantage of us because of them. ... I 
hope we shall be the dupes ld longer than we musl. 
I would venture upon monopolies, and exclusions, ii." 
they were found to be the only arms of defencu 
against moncipolios uad exclusioDs, witLout fear of 
offending Dean luckr;): or the ghvst of Poctor Ques- 
aay.--/6i(/, 2'J I 

A few daj's later he wrote 'q these words: 

Patience under nil <,]ie unequal burdens they impose 
upon our conimer'ie will do us no good; it will con- 
tribute in no degree to preserve the pence of this 
country. On the conlxary, nothing but retaliation, 
reciprocal prohibitions and imj)osts, and tutting our- 
selves in a posture of defence, wLU have any effect. 
. . . Confining tKpco ts to our own ships, and laying 
on heavy duties j,ipoE all forriign luxuries, and en- 
couraging our owi manufacture ;s, p ppear to me to be 
our only resource ^IMi], 31 "i, cif,ed in Elliott, p. 52. 

From the deh-ite over the tariff act of 1789 
we may quote v)ome remavks which will still 
further helj. us In understr'.nd'iog the spirit of 
the time. >ladiPon says: 

I am a friend o^' free ccmmtirce, and at the same 
time a friend to suth regulations as ara calculated to 
promote our nwn :ftterLSt, and this on nattonal prin- 
ciples. . . . I •?! Ish ve \irere un'^ler less necessity 
than I find vie aid, tc shackle, ouj: commerce with 
duties, restrictions, and pr^fenmces; hut there are 
cases in which it Is impossibie to avoid following 
the example of othe/ nations in the great diversity of 
our trade. — Annals of Voagress, /, pp. 192, 19H. 

During the course of the pame debate Ames, 
the leading Federalist from Massachusetts, 
wrote these words to a frient'l: 

The Senate laas begun to redU'je ttie rate of duties 



A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY. 225 

Rum is reduced one-third. . . . Molasses from five 
to four. I feel as Euceladus would if Etna was re- 
moved. The Senate, God bless them, as if designated 
by Providence to keep rash and frolicksome brats out 
of the fire, have demolished the absurd, unpolitic, 
mad discriminations of foreigners in alliance, from 
other foreigners. — Life of Fisher Ames, p. ^5. 

Hamilton, in his famous Report on Manufac- 
tures, 1702, after noting the arguments for 
freedom of trade, expresses himself as follows: 

This mode of reasoning is founded upon facts and 
principles which have certainly respectable pretensions. 
If it had governed the conduct of nations more gen- 
erally than it has done, there is room to suppose that 
it might have carried them faster to prosperity and 
greatness than they have attained by the pursuit of 
maxims too widely opposite. Most general theories, 
however, admit of numerous exceptions. . . . — State 
Faiiers and Speeches on the Tariff, p. 3. 

[After discussing the value of manufactures he says:] 
The foregoing considerations seem suflicient to estab- 
lish, as general propositions, that it is the interest of 
nations to diversify the industrial pursuits of the indi- 
viduals who compose them; that the establishment of 
manufactures is calculated not only to increase the 
general stock of useful and productive labor, but ever 
to improve the state of agriculture in particular. . . 
Ibid, p. 25. 

[Again he says:] If the system of perfect liberty to 
industry and commerce were the prevailing system of 
nations, the arguments which dissuade a country in 
the predicament of the United States from the zealous 
pursuit of manufactures would, doubtless, have great 
force. It will not be affirmed that they might not be 
permitted, with few exceptions, to serve as a rule of 
national conduct. In such a state of things each coun- 
try would have the full benefit of its peculiar advan- 
tages to compensate for its deficiencies or disadvan- 
tages. . . . 

But the system which has been mentioned is far 
from characterizing the general policy of nations. 
, . . The consequence of it is that the United States 
are, to a certaia extent, in. the situation of a couatry 



226 AIM aaiCAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

precluded fro a foreign commerce. ... In such a 
position of things the United States cannot excharige 
with Europe on equal terms, and the want of reci- 
procity wou7d render them the victim of a system 
which should induce them to confine their views to 
agriculture, and refrain from manufacture. — Ibid, pp. 
26, 27. 

Hamilton finally sums up in several proposi- 
tions tlu; advantages which he claims will be 
secured to the country should it encourage the 
development of manufactures. 

There seems to be a moral certainty that the trade 
of a country which is both manufacturing and agricult- 
ural will be more lucrative and prosperous than that 
of a country which is merely agricultural. . . . 

Another circumstance which gives a superiority of 
commercial advantages to States that manufacture as 
well as cultivate consists in the more numerous attrac- 
tions which a mere diversified market offers. ... 
A third circumstance . . . has relation to the stag- 
nations of demand for certain commodities which at 
some time or other interfere more or less with the sale 
of all. . . . 

Not only the wealth, but the independence and se- 
curity of a country appear to be materially connected 
v;ith the prosperity of manufactures. . . . Our dis- 
tance from Europe, the great fountain of manufactured 
supply, subjects us, in the existing state of things, to 
inconvenience and loss in two ways [Bulkiness of com- 
modities and consequent cost of carriage]. . . . 

If, then, it satisfactorily appears that it is the intent 
of the United States generally to encourage manufac- 
tures, it merits particular attention, that there are 
circumstances which render the present a critical mo- 
ment for entering with zeal upon the important busi- 
ness . . .--Ibid, pp. 52, 53, 55, 56, 60. 

Finally Hamilton suggests eleven means that 
may be used to encourage the development of 
manufactures: 

(1.) Protective duties. . . . 

(2.) Prohibitions of rival articles, or duties equiva- 
leut to prohibitions. 



A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY. 227 

(3.) Prohibitions of the exportation of the materials 
of manufactures. 

(4.) Pecuniary bounties [He especially approves of 
bounties]. 

(5.) Premiums. 

(6.) The exemptions of the materials of manufac- 
tures from duty. 

(7.) Drawbacks o'n the* duties which are imposed on 
the materials of manufactures. 

(8.) The encouragement of new inventions and dis- 
coveries. . . , 

(9.) Judicious regulations for the inspsction of manu- 
factured commodities. 

(10.) The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from 
place to place. 

(11.) The facilitating of the transportation of com- 
modities. — Ibid, Pi). 62-75. 

February 12, 1816, Mr. A. J. Dallas, socrelary 
of the treasui^y, in obedience to a resolution of 
the house of representatives, made a report on, 
"a general tariff of duties suitable to be im- 
posed on imported goods." ... In part he 
said: 

There are few, if any, governments which do not 
regard the establishment of domestic manufactures, as 
a chief object of public policy. . . . 

The American manufactures may be satisfactorily 
divided into three principal classes; . . . First 
class — Manufactures which are firmly and permanently 
established, and which wholly, or almost wholly, sup- 
ply the demand for domestic use and consumption. 
Second class — Manufactures which ... do not , , 
but which, with proper cultivation, are capable of 
being matured to the whole extent of the demand. 
Third class — Manufactures which are so slightly culti- 
vated, as to leave the demand of the country wholly, 
or almost wholly, dependent upon foreign sources for 
a supply. ... 

[First class]— Duties might be freely imposed upon 
the importation of similar articles, amounting wholly, 
or nearly, to a prohibition, without endangering a 
scarcity in the supply, or [exorbitant prices]. . . , 



228 AMERICAN HISTORY STUUIBS. 

The second class of manufactures presents cossiiera- 
tions of the most interesting, and not of the least em- 
barrassing nature, in the formation of a tariff, . . . 
for it is respectfully thought to be in the power of 
the legislature, by a well-timed and well-directed pat- 
ronage, to place them, within a very liniited period, 
upon th^ footing which the manufactures ^ the first 
class have been so happily placed, . . . and it will 
soon be understood that the success of the American 
manufacture which tends to diminish the profit (often 
the excessive profit) of the importer, does not neces- 
sarily add to the price of the article in the hands of 
the consumer. 

The third class of manufactures does not require fur- 
ther attention . , . than to adjust the rate of duty 
to the amount of revenue which it is necessary to draw 
from them. They have not yet been the objects of 

American capital, industry, etc ; and the 

present policy of the government is directed to pro- 
tect, and not to create manufactures. — Niles Beyister, 
pp. 437-442. 

In 1824 perhaps the greatest debate of early 
years over the tariff took place between Clay on 
the one side and Webster on the other. These 
speeches ought to be read by every American 
who wishes to be well informed concerning the 
history of his country. Clay says, in part: 

Two classes of politicians divide the people of the 
United States. According to the system of one, the 
produce of foreign industry should be subjected to no 
other import than such as may be necessary to provide 
a public revenue; and the produce of American in- 
dustry should be left to sustain itself, if it can, with no 
other than that ia:?i5ieiital protection, in its competi- 
tion, at home as well as abroad, wUi rival foreign 
articles. 

In casting our eyes around us the most prominent 
circumstance which fixes our attention and challenges 
our deepest regret is the general distress which per- 
vades the whole country. 

What, agaiu I would ask, is the cause of the unhappy 



A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY. 229 

condition of our country which I have faintlj depicted? 
It is to be found in the fact that, during almost the 
whole existence of this government, we have shaped 
our inohistry, our navigation, and our commerce, in 
reference to an extraordinary war in Europe, and to 
foreign markets which no longer exist. . . . 

Our agricultural is our greatest interest. It ought 
ever to be predominant. . . . Can we do nothing to 
invigorate it; , . . ? We have seen the causes. 
. . . We have seen that an exclusive dependence 
upon the foreign market must lead to still severer 
distress, .... We must speedily adopt a genuine 
American policy. Still cherishing the foreign market, 
let us create also a home market. . . . 

The committee will observe, from the table, that the 
measure of the wealth of a nation is indicated by the 
measure of its protection of its industry; and that the 
measure of the poverty of a nation is marked by that 
of the degree in which it neglects and abandons the 
care of its own industry, . . . Great Britain pro- 
tects most her industry, and the wealth of Great 
Britain is consequently the greatest. — State Papers and 
Speeches on the Tariff, pp. 253-275. 

April 1 and 2 Mr. Webster replied to this 
speech of Clay in perhaps the ablest speech 
that he ever made on the tariff. A few ex- 
tracts will indicate the scope of the argument: 

We are represented as on the very verge and brink 
of national ruin. So far from acquiescing in these 
opinions, I believe there has been no period in which 
the general prosperity was better secured, or rested 
on a more solid fou jdation. . . . 

We have heard much of the policy of England, and 
her example has been repeatedly urged upon us, . . . 
I took occasion the other day to remark, that more 
liberal notions were growing prevalent on this sub- 
ject; that the policy of restraints and prohibitions was 
getting out of repute, as the true nature of commerce 
became better understood; . . . 



230 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

I have never said, indeed, that prohibitory laws did 
not exist in England; we all know they do; but the 
question is, does she own her prosperity and greatness 
to these laws? I venture to say that such is not the 
opinion of the public men now in England; . . . 
[Lord Lansdowne, in a recent speech in Parliament 
saia] ''No axiom was more true than this: that it was 
by growing what the territory of a country could 
grow most. ches,p]y, and by receiving from other coun- 
tries what it could not produce except at too great an 
expense, that the greatest degree of happiness was to 
be communicated to the greatest extent of population." 
[Webster quoted this with approval, as he did another 
statement that] "Some suppose that we have risen in 
consequence of that system [the restrictive]; others, 
of whom I am one, believe that we have risen in spite 
of that system." , . . 

In fine, sir, I think it is clear that if we now em- 
brace the system of prohibitions and restrictions we 
shall show an affection for what others have discarded, 
and be attempting to ornament ourselves with cast-off 
apparel. 

We are urged to adopt the system [protective] upon 
general principles; and what would be the consequence 
of the universal application of such a principle, but 
that nations would abstain entirely from all inter- 
course with one another? I do not admit the general 
principle; on the contrary, I think freedom of trade 
to be the general principle, and restriction the excep- 
tion. . . . 

We are asked what nations ever attained eminent 
prosperity without encouraging manufactures? I may 
ask, what nation ever reached the like prosperity with- 
out promoting foreign trade? 

On the general question, sir, allow me to ask if the 
doctrine o-f prohibition, as a general doctrine, be not 
preposterous? Suppose all nations to act upon it; they 
would be prosperous, then, according to the argument, 
precisely in the proportion in which they abolished 
trade with one another. The less of mutual commerce 
the better, upon this hypothesis. ... 



A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY. 2^^! 

The poverty and unhappiness of Spain have been 
attributed to the want of protection to her own in- 
dustry. If by this it is meant that the poverty of 
Spain is owing to bad government and bad laws, the 
remark is, in a great measure, just. But these very 
laws are bad because they are restrictive, partial, and 
prohibilory. If prohibition were protection, Spain 
would seem to have had enough of it. . . . — State 
Papers and Speeches on the Tariff, pp. 320-364. 

"The Free Trade Memorial," prepared by Al- 
bert Gallatin in 1831, is one of the most famous 
of American state i)apers on that side of the 
question. It is difficult to find any quotable 
passages in this paper which will show ade- 
quately the line of argument followed. In one 
place he says: 

We may, also, before we dismiss this branch of the 
subject, and in order to rebut those general assertions 
of the ruin that attends all nations which rely, in any 
considerable degree, on foreign trade for a market, 
appeal to that which we know best, which we have 
seen and enjoyed — to the experience of North America. 
Assisted only by the ordinary mechanical arts, and 
with hardly any manufacturing establishments, 
America, during two centuries, relied almost exclu- 
sively on the cultivation of her soil, and on the ex- 
portation of her products to foreign ports; and her 
progress during that period, in population, wealth, and 
in all the arts of civilization . . . stands unparal- 
leled in the annals of mankind. A change of circum- 
stances may induce a partial and gradual alteration 
in the pursuits of her citizens, and we may rest as- 
sured that, if not diverted by legislative interference, 
they will, as herelcfore, embrace those best adapted to 
their situation.— AS'/f'/f; Papers and Speeches on the Tariff, 
p. 156. 

The only effect that can possibly be ascribed to a 
protecting duty is that of encouraging the establish- 
ment of manufactures which would otherwise not 
have existed, or ct inducing a greater number of per- 
sons to embark in those already existing. The pro- 
priety of the duty depends altogether on the proba- 



232 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

bility of speedy success, that is to say, of the 
manufacture being so far adapted to the circumstances 
of the country that, after having been assisted by the 
duty in surmounting the first difficulties to every new 
undertaking, it will be able to sustain itself, and with- 
out such assistance to compete with the foreign article. 
It has been clearly shown that the manufacture is 
otherwise a losing concern, productive of national loss. 
— /6(fZ, pp. 161, 162. 

In 1845 Kobert J. Walker, secretary of the 
treasury, in his report to congress, urged that 
the tariff be reduced to a revenue basis. I'he 
following extracts indicate the nature of his 
report : 

In suggesting improvements in the revenue laws, the 
following principles have been adopted: — 

1st. That no more money should be collected than is 
necessary for the wants of the government, economic- 
ally administered. 

2d. That no duty be imposed on any article above the 
lowest rate which will yield the largest amount of 
revenue. 

4th. That the maximum revenue duty should be im- 
posed on luxuries. 

5th. That all minimums, and all specific duties, 
should be abolished, and ad valorem duties substituted 
in their place .... 

6th. That the duty should be so imposed as to ope- 
rate as equally as possible throughout the Union, dis- 
criminating neither for nor against any class or sec- 
tion. 

A protective tariff is a question regarding the en- 
hancement of the profits of capital. That is the ob- 
ject, and not to augment the wages of labor, which 
would reduce those profits. 

The present tariff is unjust and unequal. . . . 
It discriminates in favor of manufactures and against 
agriculture, by imposing many higher duties upon the 
manufactured fabric than upon the agricultural pro- 
duct out of which it is made. It discriminates in 



A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTOHY. 233 

favor of the manufacturer and against the mechanic, 
[also] against the merchant, . . . and 
against the ship-builder and navigating interest, . . . 
etc. It discriminates in favor of the rich and against 
the poor. . . . 

Legislation for classes is against the doctrine of 
equal rights, repugnant to the spirit of our free insti- 
tutions. . . 

No prejudice is felt by the Secretary of the Treasury 
against manufacturers. His opposition is to the pro- 
tective system, and not to classes or individuals. . . . 
Whilst a due regard to the just and equal rights of all 
classes forbids a discrimination in favor of the manu- 
factures by duties above the lowest revenue limits, 
no disposition is felt to discriminate against them. 
. . . — State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff, pp. 
219-232. 

II. Internal Improvements. 

As early as 1774, at least, Washington saw 
the great importance of uniting the waters of 
the Ohio and Potomac, regarding it as "a great 
and truly wise policy." (Works, IX, 31.) His 
tour to the western country in 1784 confirmed 
him in the idea. He wrote, October 10, 1784: 

The shortest, easiest, and least expensive communi- 
cation with the invaluable and extensive country back 
of us is by one or both of the rivers of this State 
[Virginia] which have their sources in the Appalachian 
mountains. ... I need not remark to you, srr, 
that the flanks and rear of the United States are pos- 
sessed by other powers, and formidable ones, too; nor 
how necessary it is to apply the cement of interest to 
bind all parts of the Union together by indissoluble 
bonds, especially that part of it which lies immediately 
west of us, with the Middle States. . . . The West- 
ern State3 (I speak now from my own observation) 
stand as It were upon a pivot. The touch of a feather 
would turn them any way. They have looked down 
the Mississippi until the Spaniards, very impolitically 
I think for themselves, threw difficulties in their way, 
IG 



234 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

and they looked that way for no other reason than be- 
cause they could glide gently down the stream and 
because they have no other means of coming to us 
but by long land transportations and unimproved roads. 
. . . But smooth the road and make easy the way 
for them, and then see what an influx of articles will 
be poured upon us; how amazingly our experts will be 
increased by them, and how amply we shall be com- 
pensated.— TForfcs {Sparks) IX, 59-63. 

He urges in various letters the political and 
commercial possibilities with which such con- 
nections are pregnant, and that they are neces- 
sary to save the West. 

Jefferson wrote to a citizen of Kentucky, May 
26, 1788: 

I wish to see that country in the hands of people 
well disposed, who know the value of the connection 
between that and the maratime states and who wish to 
cultivate it. I consider their happiness as bound up 
together and that every measure should be taken which 
may draw the bands of union tighter. — Jefferson's 
Works, V (Ford). 

And to Washington he wrote, May 10, 1789: 

I consider the union of [the Potomac and Ohio riv- 
ers] the strongest link of connection between the 
eastern and western sides of our confederacy. — Ibid, V, 
pp. 93-94. 

To Madison he wrote, March 6, 179G: 

Have .you considered all the consequences of your 
proposition [in Congress for building a road from 
Maine to Georgia] respecting port roads? I view it as 
a source of boundless patronage by the executive, job- 
bing to members of Congress and their friends, and a 
bottomless abyss of public money. You will begin by 
only appropriating the surplus of the post office reve- 
nues; but the other revenues will soon be called to 
their aid, and it will be a scene of eternal scramble 
among the members who can get most money wasted 
in their state, and they will always get most who ar« 
meanest. — Ibid, Til, pp. 6,3-6^. 



A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY. 235 

Jeff.erson wrote to Baron Humboldt: 
In our America we are turning to public improve- 
ments. Scliools, roads, and canals are everywhere 
eitliei' in operation or contemplation. The most gi- 
gantic undertaking is that of New York for [the Erie 
Canal]. . . . Internal navigation by steamtuats is 
rapidly spi'eading. . . . We consider the employ- 
ment of the contributions which our citizens can 
spare, after feeding, and clothing, and lodging them- 
selves comfortably, as more useful, more moral, and 
even more splendid than that preferred by Europe of 
destroying human life, labor, and happiness. — Works 
(1854 Ed.), YII, p. 75. 

To Gallatin he wrote, June 16, 1817, regard- 
ing Madison's recent veto. He thinks the veto 
fortunate: 

Every state will certainly concede the power and this 
will be a national confirmation of the ground of ap- 
peal to them acd will settle forever the meaning of this 
phrase [the "general welfare" clause of article I, sec- 
tion 8] which, by a mere grammatical quibble, has 
coun^nanced the General Government in a claim of 
universal power. ... It is fortunate for another 
reason, as the States, in conceding the power, will 
modify it either by requiring the federal ratio of ex- 
pense in each state, or otherwise, so as to secure us 
against its partial exercise. — Ibid, YII, p. 79. 

To James Madison, December 24, 1825, he 
said: 

I have for some time considered the question of in- 
ternal improvement as desperate. The torrent of gen- 
eral opinion sets so strongly in favor of it as to be 
irresistible. And I suppose that even the opposition 
in Congress will hereafter be feeble and formal. . . . 
I learn from Richmond that those v/ho think with us 
there are in a state of perfect dismay, not knowing 
what to do or -what to propose. — Ibid, VII, p. 1,22. 

Hamilton, in 1792, shows how he feels on the 
question in the following words: 

The symptoms of attention to the improvement of 
inland navigation which have lately appeared in some 
quarters must fill with pleasure every heart warmed 



236 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

with a true zeal for the prosperity of the country. 
These examples it is to be hoped will stimulate the 
exertions of the Government and citizens of every 
state. There can certainly be no object more worthy 
of the care of the local administration; and it were to 
be wished that there was no doubt of the power of the 
National Government to lend its direct aid on a com- 
prehensive plan. This is one of those improvements 
which could be prosecuted with more efficacy by the 
whole than by any part or parts of the Union, There 
are cases in which the general interest will be in dan- 
ger to be sacrificed to the collision of some supposed 
local interests. Jealousies in matters of this kind are 
as apt to exist as they are apt to be erroneous. — Hamil- 
ton's Report on Manufactures, Works {ISol Ed.), Ill, vp. 
255-57. 

He held to the same views in 1801, as may be 
seen from this extract: 

The improvement of the communications between the 
different parts of the country is an object well worthy 
of the national purse and one which would abundantly 
repay to labor the portion of its earnings which may 
have been borrowed for that purpose. To provide 
roads and bridges is within the direct purview of the 
Constitution. In many parts of the country, especially 
in the Western Territory, a matter in which the At- 
lantic States are equally interested, aqueducts and ca- 
nals would also be fit subjects of pecuniary aid from 
the Government.— i7oOTi7toM's Works, VII, pp. 755-56. 

The improvement of the roads would be a measure 
universally popular. None can be more so. For this 
purpose a regular plan should be adopted co-exten- 
sive with the Union, to be successively executed, and 
a fund should be appropriated sufficient for the basis 
of a loan of a million of dollars. The revenue of 
the post office naturally offers itself. The future reve- 
nue from tolls would more than reimburse the ex- 
pense, and public utility would be promoted in every 
direction. . . . An article ought to be proposed to 
be added to the Constitution for empowering Congress 
to open canals in all cases in which it may be nec- 
essary to conduct them through the territory of two 
or more States or through the territory of a State 



A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY. 237 

and tha« of the United States The power is very de- 
sirable for the purpose of improving the prodigious 
facilities for inland navigation with which nature has 
favored this country. It will also assist commerce and 
agriculture by rendering the transportation of com- 
modities more cheap and expeditious. It will tend to 
secure the connection, by facilitating the communica- 
tion between distant portions of the Union, and it will 
be a useful source of influence to the government— 
Hamilton's Works. 71, pp. 385-87. 

A committee in the House of Representatives 
reported, March 5, 1806, upon the Chesapeake 
and Delaware canal, that they ''cannot hesitate 
a moment in deciding on the importance and 
extensive utility" of the canal. 

They consider the project as an opening wedge for 
an extensive inland navigation which would at all 
times be of an immense advantage to the commercial 
as well as the agricultural and manufacturing parts 
of the community. But in the event of a war its 
advantages would be incalculable. . . . Did the 
finances of the country admit of it the committee 
would feel a perfect freedom in recommending . . . 
the propriety of . . . such aid. . . . — American 
iitate Papers, I, Miscellaneous, p. J^52. 

[The senate committee reported similarly the same 
year that] it is among the first duties of a Govern- 
ment to promote public improvements of a general 
nature. — Ibid, p. ^5^. 

In Gallatin's famous report on roads and 
canals, made in 1807, we find the most complete 
discussion of the subject made in the early 
years of our history. In part he says: 

The general utility of artificial roads and canals is 
at this time so universally admitted as hardly to re- 
quire any additional proofs. It is sufficiently evident 
that whenever the annual expense of transportation 
on a certain route, in its natural state, exceeds tha 
interest on the capital employed in improving the com- 
munication, and the annual expense of transportation 
(exclusively of the tolls) by the improved route, the 
difference is an annual additional income to the na- 



238 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

tion. . . . Some works already executed are un- 
profitable; maiiy more remain unattenipted, because 
their ultimate productiveness depends on other im- 
provements too extensive or too distant to be em- 
braced by the same individuals. The General Gov- 
ernment can alone remove these obstacles. With 
resources amply sufficient for the completion of every 
practicable improvement it will always supply the 
capital wanted for any work which it may undertake 
as fast as the work itself can progress; avoiding 
thereby the ruinous loss of interest on a dormant 
capital, and reducing the real expense to its lowest 
rate. . . . The inconveniences, complaints, and 
perhaps dangers, which may result from a vast extent 
of territory, can no otherwise be radically removed 
or prevented than by opening speedy and easy com- 
munications through all its parts. Good roads and 
canals will shorten distances, facilitate commercial and 
personal intercourse, and unite by a still more in- 
timate community of interests the most remote quarters 
of the United States No other single operation within 
the power of Government can more effectually tend to 
strengthen and perpetuate that Union which secures 
external independence, domestic peace, and internal 
liberty. . . , [The improvements he therefore sug- 
gests as] most important to facilitate the communica- 
tion between the great geographical divisions of the 
United States [are: I, from north to south parallel 
to the seacoast, canals costing f 3 000,OCO, turnpikes 
costing $4,800,000; II, from east to west forming com- 
munications across the mountains between the At- 
lantic and western rivers, improvement in Atlantic 
rivers costing $1,500,000, turnpikes and road improve- 
ments costing $3,000,000, canals costing $300,000; III, 
improvements forming inland navigations between the 
Atlantic seacoast and the St. Lawrence and Great 
Lakes, $4,000,000. This total of $16,600,000 is also in- 
creased by $3,400,000 for local improvements — a grand 
total of $20,000,000, which it is proposed to accomplish 
in ten yearly payments of $2,000,000 each. The public 
lands may be sold for the purpose and the improve- 
ments will, in turn, benefit the purchasers.] 

It is evident that the United States cannot, under 
the Constitution, open any road or canal, without the 



A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY. 239 

consent of the State through which such road or canal 
must pass. In order therefore to remove every im- 
pediment to a national plan of internal improvement, 
an amendment to the Constitution was suggested by 
the Executive when the subject was recommended to 
the consideration of Congress [by President Jefferson 
in Message 11]. Until this b9 obtained, the assent of 
the States being necessary for each improvement, the 
modifications under which that assent may be given, 
will necessarily control the manner of applying the 
money. . . . The United States may with the asBnt 
of the States undertake some of the works at their 
sole expense or they may subscribe a certain number 
of shares of the stock of companies incorporated for 
the purpose. Loans might also, in some instances, 
be made to such companies. The first mode would 
perhaps, by effectually controlling Iccal interesLs, give 
the most proper general direction to the work. Its 
details would probably be executed on a more eco- 
nomical plan by private comiiames.— American State 
PaiKTs, I, MisccUaiieous, pp. 72.'t-;i5, l.'fO-Jil. 

Benton (Mo.), May 1, 1828, says: 

He was in favor of the federal power to make 
roads and canals of national importance. ... He 
was in favor of the construction of such roads and 
canals by the Federal Government provided the States 
through which they would pass consented to it . . .; 
not . . . that the consent of a State could confer 
a power upon Congress not derived from the Consti- 
tution; but it was decent and becoming to consult the 
wishes of the State in all such cases because its assent 
would do away with all that class of objections to the 
exercise of the power which were founded upon a real 
or supposed violation of State sovereignty and a real 
or supposed violation of State territory. — Kajiatcr De- 
bates, lY, p. 718. 

Calhoun (S. C.) speaks as follows- in 1817: 
[In times of peace and plenty] to what can we di- 
rect our resources and attention more important than 
internal improvements' What can add more to the 
wealth, the strength, and the political prosperity of 
our country? ... It tends to diffuse universal op- 



240 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES, 

ulence. . . . When we come to cons der 1 o .v inti- 
mately the strength and political prosperity cf the 
Republic are connected with this subject we find the 
most urgent reasons why we should apply our re- 
sources to them. . . . Unless the means of com- 
mercial intercom se are rendered much more perfect 
than they now are we shall never be able in war to 
raise the necessary supplies . . . and the means 
by which that [remedy] is to be effected are roads, 
canals, and the coasting trade. . . . But on this 
subject of national power what can be more important 
than a perfect unity in every part, in feelings and 
sentiments? And wha': can tend more powerfully to 
produce it than overcoming the effects of distance? 
. . . We are great, and rapidly — he was about to 
say fearfully — growing. This, said he, is our pride 
and danger — our weakness and our strength. . . . 
Let us then . . . bind the Republic together with 
a perfect system cf roads and canals. Let us conquer 
space.— Ah Hff/s- of Coiu/ress, XXX, pp. 851-856. 

At r.bnut the same time, February 8, 1817, the 
House used this language: 

Upon mature consideration the facility of commer- 
cial and personal intercoiu'se throughout the whole 
extent of the United States and its Territories is 
viewed by the committee, as it appears to have been 
viewed by former committees of both branches of the 
National Legislature, and by every Executive of the 
Government since its formation, as an essential in- 
gredient in the general economy of the nation as well 
in relation to the pursuits of peace as to those of war 
and also to the perpetuation and integrity of the Re- 
publican Union. — American State Papers, II, Miscella- 
neous, p. Ji20. 

Madison vetoes a bill passed by Congress in 
1817 to appropriate money for internal improve- 
ments, and justifies his veto, in part, in these 
words : 

The legislative powers vested in Congress are speci- 
fied and enumerated in the eighth section of the first 
article of the Constitution and it does not appear 
that power proposed by the bill ["An act to set apart 



A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY. 241 

and pledge certain funds for internal improveL^ents"] 
is among the enumerated powers or that it fails by 
any just interpretation within the power to make laws 
necessary and proper for carrying into execution those 
or other powers held by the Constitution in the Gov- 
ernment of the United States. ... If a general 
power to construct roads and canals and to improve 
the navigation of water courses, with the train of 
powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, 
the assent of the States . . . cannot confer the 
power. [But while vetoing the bill he "cherishes the 
hope" that its beneficial objects may be attained by 
an amendment to the Constitution.] — Messaijts and 
Papers of the Presidents, I, pp. 58.^-585. 

Monroe, in his "Views," May 4, 1S22, sum- 
marized the arguments that have been ad- 
vanced .in favor of the constitutional power of 
Congress to act. He savs: 

The advocates of the power derive it from the fol- 
lowing sources: First, the right to establish post- 
otBces and post-roads; second, to declare war; third, 
to regulate commerce among the several States; fourth, 
from the power to pay the debts and provide for the 
common defence and general welfare of the United 
States; fifth, from the power to make all laws neces- 
sary and proper for carrying into execution all the 
powers vested by the Constitution in the Government 
of the United States or in any department or ofiicar 
thereof; sixth and lastly, from the power to dispose of 
and make all needful rules and regulations respecting 
the territory and other pioperty of the United States. 
[He denies all successively, his position as to each 
may be summarized as follows: 

[No. 1. merely gives to Congress powe^- to fix the sites 
of post-offices and the routes on which the mail may 
be carried. 

No. 2, if allowed, would cover the entire country 
with roads which niir/ht be useful in time of war but 
most of which cannot possibly ever be connected with 
war transportation. And the influences from clause 
17 of the Constitution and general reasoning are all 
against it. 



242 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

No. 3. Such commercial powers were transferi-ed to 
the United States whose exercise by the States had 
proved mischievous and irritating; inte'-nal improve- 
ments had nothing to do with these, but oni^ !,he levy- 
ing of duties and imposts. 

No. 4 merely gives to Congress authority to appro- 
priate the public moneys laid and collected by taxes, 
duties, imposts, and excises. It Is the only clause 
in the Constitution directly giving the right of appro- 
priation; it is evidently not given in class 1 as a dis- 
tinct grant; if it were, then its vast extent swallows 
up all the rest of the Constitution and makes it use- 
less. But this power of appropriation is not limited 
to expenditures under the other specific grants of the 
eighth section strictly constructed, but is broad, gen- 
eral, discretionary, yet always limited like the Gov- 
ernmenr. of the Union to "great national purposes." 
For internal improvements money might be appro- 
priated, but this of itself can do nothing toward secur- 
ing the land, jurisdiction, building and protecting the 
works. 

No. 5 is of no value unless the power is primarily 
granted by one of the other powers. 

No. 6 is shown by an historical argument to have 
nothing to do with the question.] — Richardson's Mes- 
sages and Papers of the Presidents, II, pp. 156-175. 

Trimble (Ky.), January 21, 1825, says: 
Public opinion was embodying itself in favor of 
roads and canals, and during the last year had made 
so many demonstrations in favor of internal improve- 
ments that Congress migiit consider itself called upon 
by the nation to begin the "•ork in good earnest. — 
Register of Dehates, I, p. 319. 

Buchanan (Pa.), 182G, uses this language: 
If there be any principle cS constitutional law 
which, at this day, should be considered as settled, it 
is that Congress has the pcv/er to aid interna/ im- 
provement by subscribing for stock in companies in- 
corporated by the States. — Register of Drhates, II, p. 
1615. 

Clay (Ky.). in 1S2."5, 
considered the question as to the existence and the 



A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY. 24o 

exercise of a power in the General GovernmenL to 
carry into offect a system of internal improvements, 
as amounting to the question whether the union of 
these States should be preserved or not. , . . As 
to the opinion that the carrying on of these improve- 
ments belonged to the States in their indivi«Jual and 
separate character, U might as well be expected that 
the States should perform any other duty which ap- 
pertained to the General Government. You have no 
more right ... to ask the individual States to 
make internal improvements for the general welfare 
than you have to ask them to make war for the gen- 
eral welfare or to build fortifications for the general, 
defence. — Register of Debates, I, p. 231. 

In Jackson's veto of the Maysville road ap- 
propriation, 1830, we read: 

[The first possible line of objection would be upon 
the question of the sovereignty of the States within 
whose limits improvements are contemplated if juris- 
diction of the territory be claimed by the General 
Government as necessary to the preservation and use 
of the improvements; the second would be upon the 
mere question of right to appropriate public moneys 
for such objects. So far the Government has never 
executed the first power — which it does not, in reality, 
possess. Long practice has sanctioned the second; 
but always] professedly under the control of the gen- 
eral principle that the works which might be thus 
aidc-d should be "of a general, not local, national, not 
State," character. A disregard of this distinction 
would ?.f necessity lead to the subversion of the fed- 
eral .system. That even this is an unsafe one, arbi- 
trary in its nature, and liable, consequently, to great 
abuses, is coo obvious to require the confirmation of 
experience. Assuming the right to appropriate money 
to aid iu the construction of national works to be 
warranted by the contemporaneous and continued ex- 
position of the Constitution,^ its insufficiency for the 
successful prosecution of them must be admitted by 
all candid tninds. [Whether to enable the Federal 
Government itself to construct the improvements, or 
to define the occasion, manner, and extent of its ap- 
propriations to works prosecuted by the States, it is 



244 AMERICAN HISTORY STUDIES. 

true] that a constitutional adjustment of this power 
upon equitable principles is in the highest degree de- 
sirable, . . . nor can it fail to be promoted by 
every sincere friend to the success of our political in- 
stitutions. — Messages and Papers of the Presidents, II, 
pp. 483-93. 

Jackson's message of December 1, 1834, said: 

When the bill authorizing a subscription ... in 
the Maysville & Lexington Turnpike Co. passed the 
two houses, there had been reported by the Committee 
on Internal Improvements bills containing appropri- 
ations for such objects, exclusive of those for the 
Cumberland road and for harbors and light-houses, to 
the amount of about 106,000,000 of dollars. In this 
amount was included authority ... to subscribe 
for the stock of different companies to a great extent, 
and the residue was principally for the direct con- 
struction of roads by this Government. In addition to 
these projects which had been presented . . . there 
were still pending before the committees and in 
memorials presented, but not refused, different projects 
. . . the expenses of which . . . must have ex- 
ceeded 100,000,000 of dollars. . . . 

Since the Maysville veto "no attempt . . . has 
been made to induce Congress to exercise this pow.er. 
The applications for the construction of roads and 
canals . . . are no longer presented; and we have 
good reason to infer that the consent of public senti- 
ment has become so decided against the pretension as 
effectually to discourage its reassertion." — Messages 
and Papers of the Presidents, III, pp. 120-21. 

Polk, in his veto, 1847, uses these words: 
It is not easy to perceive the difference in Briuciple 
or mischievous tendency between appropriations for 
making roads and digging canals and appropriations 
to deepen rivers and improve harbors. All are alike 
within the limits and jurisdiction of the States. . . . 
If the power to improve a harbor be admitted it is 
not easy to perceive how the power to deepen every 
inlet on the ocean or the lakes and make harbors 
where there are none can be denied. If the power to 
clear out or deepen the channel of rivers near their 
mouths be admitted, it is not easy to perceive how the 



A STUDY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY. 245 

power to improve them to their fountain heaa and 
make them navigable to their sourcef. can be denied 
. . , iviay the General Government exercise power 
and jurisdiction over the soil of a State consisting of 
roclis and sandbars in ^he beds- vi its rivers? and may- 
it not execute a canal around its waterfalls or ai;roES 
its lands for precisely the same object? — Ibid -V, pp. 
612-GL',. 

Buchanan, in his veto of 18G0, adds: 

The distinctive spirit aud characUr which pervades 
the. Constitution is that the powers of the General 
Government are confined ... to subjects of com- 
mon interest to all the States, carefully leaving the 
internal and dom.estic concerns -of each individual 
State to be controlled by its own people and legisla- 
ture. . . . Besides, the corrupting and seducing 
money influence exerted by the General Government 
in carrying into effect a system of internal improve- 
ments might be perverted to increase and consolidate 
its own power co the detriment of the rights of the 
States. . . . Equality among the States is equi'y. 
This quality is the very essence of the Constitution. 
No preference can justly be given to one of the sov- 
ereign States over another. . . . The truth is most 
of these improvements are in a great degree local in 
their character and for the particular benefit of cor- 
porations or individuals in their vicinity, though they 
may have an odor of nationality on the principle that 
whatever benefits any part indirectly benefits tVie 
whole. Article I, section 10, paragraph 3, affords a. 
peri"ectly legitimate mode of acquiring the improve- 
ments, in a constitutional manner, by the States. — 
imd, Y, pp. 60i-5. 

QUESTIONS. 

1. How would the Americans feel towards the law 
of 1699? 2. Why was bar iron lo be imported from 
America? 3. How would it be helpful to the colo- 
nists? 4. Why were the colonists not to manufacture 
the bar iron into steel? 5. What was to be done with 
the American mills? 6. How would such laws as these 
make the colonists feel in regard to the restrictive 
system? 

1. What argument does Franklin use to secure the 
retention of Canada? 2. What industry does Franklin 
evidently prefer? 3. What condition results where 



246 aM5:ricas F^'proRY studies, 

!ra!iufact?:-es ^revaii? 4. How does F"arJ:lin feel 
toMVird tte restrictive system? 5. Compare the ideaa 
of Franklin and Jefferson. 6. WLy could manufactures 
succeed in America? 7. Did tb.e statesmen, judged by 
tho ones cited, believe in restraints *nw discrimina- 
tions? 8. How would yoa account lor tneir views'" 
9. How did they feel after about 1783? 10. Explain the 
r'iasons for the change. 11, Did the statesmen like 
the change, or were they forced to make it? 

1. Did Hamilton believe in protection as a general 
prir.ciple? 2. "What arguments did he give for protec- 
tion '! 3. What plaivs did Hamilton propose to en- 
courage manufactures? 4. What position would he 
probably take nov/ were he living? 5. Outline the 
plan of Mr. Dallas. 6. To what class of products did 
he propose to give aid? 7. Why not aid class three? 

1. What principle did Webster advocate in 1824? 
2. What principle did Clay? 3. What condition was 
che country in according to Clay; to Webster? 4. What 
remedy did Clay propose for the distress? 5. How 
would Clay now have to argue in regard to England? 
B. Why had England been prosperous, according to 
Clay; to Webster? 7. What interest was Clay espe- 
cially speaking for? What Webster? 8. How do you 
explain the fact that the two men differed so radically 
both in regard to fact and theory? 9. What new idea 
ioes Gallatin bring in? 10. What does he claim pro- 
tection must accomplish to be beneficial? 11. Name 
the arguments Dallas makes. 12. Who made, in your 
opinion, the ablest argument? Why? 

1. What good did Washington expect from internal 
improvements? 2. How did Jefferson expect to join 
Ihe west to the east? 3. Did he believe in the general 
government undertaking a system of internal improve- 
ments? 4. Compare Jefferson's and Hamilton'3 views. 
5. Op which side was Gallatin? 6. Was Calhoun, in 
1817, a nationalist or a vStates Rights man, judging 
from the extract given? 7. Make a list of all the ar- 
eunaents you find for internal improvements; another 
list of those against, 8. Into how many classes did 
Jackson «V'-ude internal improvements? 9. In what 
ways was i*^ claimed the nation might aid internal im- 
provements? 10. Can you iiive tlie reasons for ho m.iny 
vetoes of bills for internal improvements? 13, Wri.e a 
paper in the bensfito of ? system of intj:.'>,j| iinjjrove- 
aieiii 12. WriU' ooe on the dangerf. %, iu 



CHRONOLOCxY 

1492. Discovery of America. 

1497. The Cabots on the coast of North America. 

1513. Florida discovered. The Pacific Ocean first 

seen. 
1519-22. First circumnavig-ation of the world. 
1519-21. The Mississippi discovered l)^' De Soto. 
1565. Florida settJed by Sjniniards. 
1584-87. Sir Walter Kaleigh's attempt at coloniza- 
tion. 
1G07. Jamestown settled. Captain John Smith. 
lf)08.' Quebec fonnded by French. 
1609. Hudson river discovered by Dutch. 
1619. House of Burgesses. Slaves introduced into 

Virginia. 
1020. Pilgrims land at Plymouth. 
1630. Boston foiindtd. 

1634. ;N[aryland settled. Peligious toleration. 
1636. Harvard college founded. Roger Williams 

settles .Tvhode Island. Pequod war. 

1638. New Haven founded; Swedes settled Delaware. 

1639. First written Constitution — "Fundamental Or- 

ders" of Connecticiit. 
1643. New England Confederacy. 
1656-61. Persecution of Quakers in Massachusetts. 

1664. New York captured bj- the English. 

1665. English settle New Jersey. 
1()75. King Philip's wai-. 

1676. Bacon's rebellion. 

1682. Pennsylvania founded bjr Penn. 

1691. Massachusetts New Charter. Leisler exe- 

cuted. 

1692. ^^■illiani and ^tfary College founded. Witch- 

craft delusion. 

1701. Yale College founded. 

1704. Boston News Letter — First American newspa- 
per. 

1718. New Orleans founded by the French. 

1733. Oglethorpe founds Savannah, Ga. 

1746. College of New Jersey, Princeton founded. 

1749. University of Pennsylvania founded. 

1754. Albany convention. 

1754-63. FrenOh and Indian war. 

1759. Wolfe takes Quebec. 

1763. Peace of Paris; Canada g-ained bj' English. 
Mason and Dixon's Line. 



248 CHRONOLOGY. 

1765. Stamp Act Congress; Patrick Henry's resolu- 

tions; "Sons of Liberty." 

1766. lve])eal of Stamp Act; The Declaratory Act. 

1767. Townshend Kevenue Act; Dickinson's Farmer's 

Letters. 

1768. Eritisli Troops in Boston. 

1770. Repeal Townshend Act. "Boston Massacre." 

1771. Tryon's war in .\orth Carolina. 

1772. The "(iaspee" burned: Committees of Corres- 

pondence in ]S[assachusetts. 

1773. Boston "Tea Party;" Intercolonial Commit- 

tees of Correspondence. 

1774. Boston Port Bill; Massachnsetts Charter Bill; 

Quai-tering Troops; Quebec Act; Fii-st Con- 
tinental Cong-ress. 

1775. War begins; Lexington; Ticonderoga. Seco.-.d 

Continental Congress. Washing-ton, Com- 
mander-in-Chief; Bnnker Hill. 

1776. Declaration of Independence; Boston evacu- 

ated; Americans defeated at New York and 
in New Jersey; Trenton; "Common Sense" 
by Thos. Paine. 

1777. Surrender of Burgoyne; Articles of Confedera- 

tion sent to the States; "Valley Forge." 

1778. France makes treaty with States. George 

Eogers Clark in Illinois, etc. 

1779. War in South. 

1780. War in South; Arnold's treason; Andre; Gen. 

Green. 

1781. Cornwallis surrenders. Robert Morris head of 

finances. Confederacy completed. Bank of 
North America. 

1783. Treaty of peace. 

1784. First Ordinance for Northwest Territory. 

1785. Maryland and Virginia Commissions meet. 

1786. Annapolis Convention. 

1787. Constitutional Convention. "Ordinance of 

1787." 

1788. Constitution ratified by ten states. 

1789. Government under the new Constitution be- 

g-un; Washington President. North Carolina 
ratifies the Constitution. 

1790. Rhode Iskmd accepts the Constitution. 

1791. Ten Amendments adopted. Bank chartered. 

Parties formed. Kentucky a State. As- 
sumption. 

1792. Columbia river discovered. French Republic 

established. Vermont a State. 

1793. Genet and neutrality. Cotton gin. Fugitive 

Slave Law. 

1794. Whiskey Insurrection. Jay's Treaty. 

1795. Excitement over Jay Treaty; Treaty with 

Spain. 



CHROXOLOGY. 249 

1796. "Posts" delivered. Washington's Farewell Ad- 

dress. Tennessee a State. 

1797. John Adams President. 

1798. X. V. Z. affair; Alien Laws; Sedition Law; 

Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. 

1799. Kenj:ucky Resolutions. Army Intrigue. \Yash- 

ing-ton dies. 

1800. Treaty with France. Washington City be- 

comes the Capitol. Jefferson-Burr contest. 

1801. Jefferson President. 

1802. Ohio a State. 

1803. Louisiana purchase. 

1804. Lewis and Clark expedition. XII Amendment. 
1805-6. The Burr Conspiracy. 

1806. Orders in Council. Berlin Decree. 

1807. "Chesapeake" and "Leopard." Embargo. 

1808. Slave trade illegal. 

1809. Xon-Intercourse substituted for Embargo. 

Madison President. 

1810. "Macon Bill No. I." 

1811. "Tippecanoe." 

1812. War declared. liOuisiana a State. 

1813. War; Perry's Victory. 

1814. The Hartford Convention. Washington 

burned. Treaty of Peace signed. 

1815. January 4, the Hartford Convention ad- 

journed. Januarj- 8, Jackson's victory at 
New Orleans. Unitarian secession from Con- 
gregational Church. 

1816. Second National Bank chartered. Dallas' re- 

port on manufactures. Tariff act passed; 
generally regarded as the first protective 
tariff. American "Colonization Society'" 
founded. Caucus system for nominating 
presidential candidates breaking down. 
National debt, $127,335,000. Calhoun's "bank 
bonus bill" for internal improvements intro- 
duced. Monroe elected President and Tomp- 
kins Vice-President, by 183 electoral vot«s, 
to 34 for King. Indiana admitted as a state. 

1817. ^lonroe's tour throug'h New England and the 

West. All internal taxes repealed. Specie 
payments resvimed. The Seminole War in 
Florida begins. Madison vetoes an internal 
improvement bill. Mississippi admitted as 
a state. The "Savannah" the first steamship 
to cross the Atlantic. 
1817-20. Old party names pass out of use. Local 
issues take the place of national. Specula- 
tion, followed by the first great crisis. 

1818. Connecticut adopts a new constitution. Jack- 

son invades Florida. Hangs Ambrister and 
Arbuthnot; thus involves the United States 

17 



250 CHROXOLOGY. 

with England. Clay attacks Jackson in 
Congress. Increase of tariff on iron. Treaty 
with Great Britain. Fisheries, boundary, 
Oregon and commercial questions provided 
for. Illinois admitted as a state. 

1819. Florida bought from Spain for $5,000,000. 

Strug-gle over the admission of Missouri be- 
gins. Arkansas organized as a Territory, 
with slavery. The crisis of 1819-21 begins. 
The National bank investigated. Specie pay- 
ments ag'ain suspended, except in New Eng- 
land. The Supreme Court in McCullough 
vs. Maryland decides the National Bank law 
constitutional. The famous Dartmouth Col- 
lege case, i.nd Webster's plea; held that 
Charters are contracts. An act against the 
slave trade. Alabama admitted as a state. 
University of Virg-inia chartered. 

1820. The slave trade declared piracy. Liberia 

founded. The first (?) Missouri compromise. 
In Louisiana, territory slavery to be forbid- 
den north of latitude 36° 30'. Missouri en- 
abling act passed. A constitution to be 
formed with or without slavery as its peo- 
ple wished. Monroe re-elected President 
and only one opposing vote. Maine admit- 
ted as a state. Population, U. S. 9,633,822. 

(1) Free States, 5,132,000; (2) Slave 
States, 4,522,000. 
Eepresentatives in Congress: (1) Free 
States, 133; (2) Slave States, 90. 

1821. The second (?) Missouri compromise. Clay's. 

Missouri admitted as a state. The Florida 
treaty ratified by Spain. New York forms 
a new constitution; extends suffrage. In- 
trigues for presidency, in 1824, begin. 
Crawford and Adams most prominent can- 
didates. Jackon governor of Florida. 

1822. Monroe vetoes the Cumberland road bill. 

Jackson conies forward as a presidential 
candidate. 
1818-22. The independence of the Spanish-American 
states recogTiized by the United States. 

1823. The so-called Monroe doctrine set forth. The 

"Holy Alliance" baffled in its American 
plans. Monroe's letter against the internal 
improvement plans and ideas of the times. 

1824. The tariff rates increased; protection ex- 

tended. The great Webster-Clay debate 
over protection. The last Congressional cau- 
cus to nominate presidential candidates. 
Crawford nominated for President by the 
caucus; Adams, Clay and Jackson by the 



CHRONOLOGY. 251 

state leg-islatures. Pennsylvania suggests a 
national nominating" convention. Not cai'- 
ried out till 1831. Lafayette visits Amer- 
ica. No choice by electors for px-esident. 
(1) Jackson, 99; (2) Adams, 84; (3) 
Crawford, 41; (4) Clay,- 37. 

1825. In Congx-ess Clay's followex*s sxxpport Adanxs. 

(1) Adaxns, 13 states; (3) Jackson, 7 
states; (3) Crawford, 4 states. 
Ci'y of "bargain and sale" raised. University 
of Vix-ginia opened. Clay becomes Secretary 
of State. Adams urges internal ixxxprove- 
ments and a national university. The Ex'ie 
canal opexied. Webstex''s "Bunker Hill" ox-a- 
tion. The Panama Cong-x-ess. Clay's "Hu- 
man Freedom League" to oppose the "Holy 
Alliance" proposed. 

1826. Duel betweexx Clay and Eandolph. Troxxble 

with Creek Indiaxxs in Georgia. July 4, Ad- 
ams and Jefferson die. American Temper- 
ance Society at Boston. 

1827. Congress in opposition to President Adams. 

Difiiculties with England settled by Gallatin. 

1828. Candidates for presidency nominated by state 

legislatxxres and mass conventions. The 
"tariff of abominatioxxs." Webster this year, 
for the first time, sxxppox'ts protection. The 
tx'ixxmph of "the peojDle" in the election of 
Jackson. Anti-Mason excitexnexxt. The dis- 
appearance of Mox-gan. Soxxth Carolina dis- 
satisfied with the tax'iff law. 

1829. Jackson's inauguration; popular denxonstra- 

tion. Jacksoxx and Biddle begin the baxxk 
struggle. The "Kitchen cabinet." The 
"spoils sj'stem"' introduced into xxatioual pol- 
itics. Tlxe real begiixning- of railroads in the 
LTnited States. 
ISoO. The JNIaysville road veto by Jacksoxx. The 
tariff bill nxodifled; protection retained. 
Webstex'-Hayne debate. Nullification doc- 
trine set forth. B. & O. railroad opened. 
Population 12,866,020. 

1831. Jacksoxx x-eorganizes his cabixiet, and breaks 

with Calhoxxxx. The Semiixole controversy. 
The Nat Tux-ner insux-i-ection in Virgiixia. 
Abolition societies organized. Tlxe first na- 
tional nominating coxxvention. Garrison be- 
gins the "Liberator." 

1832. The bank veto. Monopoly denounced. Jack- 

son x'e-elected. Tariff act; agaixx protectioix 
sustained. The Anti-Masons enter national 
politics. Tlxe first one-idea party. Nullifica- 
tion ordiixance by South Carolina. Jackson 



252 CHRONOLOGY. 

issues his proclamation against nullification. 
Charles Carroll, the last of the signers of 
the Declaration of Independence, dies. 

1833. The "force bill". Clay's compromise tarifE 

bill. South Carolina .withdraws her nulli- 
fication act. The Webster-Calhoun debate. 
Jackson at his zenith. October 1, "removal 
of the deposits." Clay's land distribution 
bill vetoed. National abolition society or- 
ganized. 

1834. "Censure" of the president by the senate. The 

hard-money struggle; Benton. The Whig 
party formed and named. McCormick's 
reaping machine patented. 

1835. Mob spirit everywhere; especially against ab- 

olitionists and catholics. National debt paid 
off. The "loco-focos." Prudence Crandall's 
school for colored girls closed. Struggle 
over "incendiary matter" in the mails. In- 
dians of Georgia itmoved to Indian Ter- 
ritory. 

1836. "Gag" resolutions in Congress against recep- 

tion of "abolition" petitions. J. Q. Adams 
begins his g-reat struggle for the "right of 
petition." Bill for "distribution of the sur- 
plus" $36,000,000, among the states. July 4, 
death of Madison. Van Buren electe 1 pres- 
ident. Texas wins the victory of San Jac.nto. 
The "specie circular" issued. Arkansas ad- 
mitted as a state. 

1837. The "expunging resolutions" adopted. Texas 

independence recognized. The United States 
presses for a settlement of her "clams' 
against Mexico. The great crisis and panic, 
speculation collapses. Van Buren for the 
"independent" or "sub-treasury." E. P. 
Lovejoy murdered. First proposal to annex 
Texas. Michigan admitted as a State. 

1838. Continued troubles on the Canadian frontier. 

Smithsonian Institution founded. 

1839. Trouble in organizing- the House. The New 

Jersey seats. The "Amistad" case. The 

Daguerreotvpe first used in the Uuittd 

States. 

1835-42. Era of "isms." Fourierism, homoeopathy, 

hydropathj^ the Graham diet, phrenology, 

etc. Transcendentalism, Emerson, Thor- 

eau, Margaret Fuller, Hawthorne, etc. 

1840. The "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" canip.iign. 

Election of Harrison, on "hard cider and 
log-cabin cry." Sub-treasury act ])assed. The 
Liberty party first appears in a national con- 
test. Population, 17,0Cy,453, 



CHRONOLOGY. 253 

1830-40. A real American literature beginning to ap- 
pear. Cheap newspapers, tie Sun, 1833; 
the Herald, 1835; the Tribune, 1841, etc. 

1841. Utter collapse of the "Second National Bank"' 

and President Harrison's death. Sub-treas- 
ury act repealed. Clay and Tyler in oppos^i- 
tion. Tyler and his cabinet quarrel over 
Tyler's bank vetoes. 

1842. The Ashburton-Webster treaty. Protective 

tariff law enacted. State debts repudiated. 
Dickens visits America. The Dorr rebellion 
in Rhode Island. Dr. Whitman travels on 
horseback from Oregon to St. Louis. 

1843. Webster resigns as Secretary of State. 

1844. Treaty of Annexation with Texas, rejected by 

the Senate. Clay defeated by Polk for pres- 
ident. The telegraph first used, Baltimore 
to Washington. The Democratic campaign 
cry, "540 4U' or fight." 

1845. Joint resolution for annexing Texas. Polk's 

four great measures announced to Bancroft; 
Tariff' reduction, acquisition of California, 
the independent or sub-treasury restored, 
Oregon boundary settled; all accompl shed. 
Florida admitted as a state. Texas admitted 
as a state. 

1846. The independent treasury act passed. The Ore- 

gon boundary line settled. A treaty with 
Great Britain. California and New Mexico 
seized. The so-called free-trade tariff" passed. 
The "Wilmot-Proviso" proposed. Howe in- 
vents the sewing machine. Iowa admitted 
as a state. 

1847. Victories over Mexico. Renown of Taylor and 

Scott. Lincoln first appears in national pol- 
itics. Douglas' first term in the Senate. 

1848. Taylor elected over Cass. The "Free-Soil" 

movement; Van Buren its candidate. Treaty 
of Guadaloupe Hidalgo. February 23, J. Q. 
Adams dies. Calhoun asserts right of slave- 
holder to take his slave into any territory 
of the United States. Discovery of gold in 
California. The Mormons emigrate to Utah. 
W^isconsin admitted as a state. 

1849. Struggle in Congress continues over organiza- 

tion of the territories. Rush to gold fields 
of California. 
18.50. Wei)ster's "7th of March" speech. Seward's 
"Higher Law" .speech, March 11. Clay's 
coni))romi^-c adopted. Calit'oriiia a free state. 
Slave trade in District of C(jluinbia to end. 
Texas boundai-y settled. Texas paid $10,0 )U,- 
000. Utah and New Mexico tei-ritorics with- 



254 CHRONOLOGY. 

out specification as regards slavery. Fugi- 
tive slave law. The Ciayton-Bulwer treaty. 
Death of President Taylor. Fugiiive slave 
excitement begins. Population, 23,191,876. 

1851. "Filibusterers" invade Cuba. Letter postage 

reduced to three cents. Disunion threatened. 
Visit of Kossuth. Webster's Hulseman let- 
ter. Maine liquor law. 

1852. Scott and Pierce. The "Tweedle-Dee and 

and Tweedle-Dum" campaign. Scott carried 
only four states, Kentucky and Ttnnessa-e, 
Massachusetts and \'ermont. Clay and Web- 
ster die. "Uncle Tom's Cabin." 

1853. The Koszta dilficulty. Ihe (iadsden purcha e. 

1854. The Kansas-Nebraska bill. D.uglas urges his 

"popular sovereignty" doctrine. "Filiibuster- 
ing" against Cuba. The Know-Nothings 
come into being. The Republican jjarty or- 
ganized. The "Ostend Manifesto." The 
struggle begins in Kansas. Treaty with 
Japan. 

1855. Personal liberty laws in northern states. The 

"New England Colonization" society. Mis- 
souri invades Kansas. Banks eltct^d speaker 
of the House. 

1856. Wm. Walker in Nicaragua. Sumner assaulted 

by Brooks. Whigs and Americans nomina'iC 
Fillmore. Eepublicans nominate Fremont. 
Democrats nominate and elect Buchanan. 
The first geographical party campaign. Sack 
of Lawrence, Kansas. Threats of disunion 
should Fremont be elected. 

1857. March 6, the Dred Scott Decision. The L-- 

compton constitution. Douglas breaks with 
Buchanan. The new Tarifi: Act, Duti.»s low- 
ered. The panic and crisis. 

1858. Eebellion in Utah. Atlantic Cable laid. Thj 

Lincoln-Douglas debate. Sev^'ard's ' irrepres- 
sible conflict" speech at Rochester. Minne- 
sota admitted as a state. 

1859. John Brown invades Virginia. Election of 

Speaker. Helper's "Impending Crisis."' 
Great Excitement in Congress. Urogon ad- 
mitted as a state. 

1860. Lincoln and the Republicans. No slave exten- 

sion. Douglas and "Popular Sovereignty" 
Democrats. Bell and the "Union." Breck- 
enrjdge and slave extension. Secession ordi- 
nance passed by South Carolina. Various 
plans for compromise. J. J. Crittenden. 
Population, 31.443,3:31. 

1861. The Peace Conference; all plans fail. Davis 

elected President of the Southern Confed- 



CHRONOLOGY. 255 

eracy. Attack on Siimpter. War. Kansas 
admitted as a state. Lincoln inaugurated. 

1862. The "Monitor." 

1863. Emancipation proclamation. National Bank 

Act. Gettysburg. Draft rlot-s. 

1864. Lincoln re-elected. Maryland abolishes slav- 

ery. Confederacy split by Sherman. 

1865. War ends; Assassination of Lincoln; Johnson 

President. Thirteenth Amendment. 

1866. Atlantic Cable. 

1867. Alaska bought. 

1868. Impeachment of President Johnson. Four- 

teenth Amendment adopted. 

1869. Grant President. Pacific railroad completed. 

1870. Fifteenth Amendment. Treaty for San 

Doming-o. Population, 38,558,371. 

1871. All states again in Congress. Chicago fix-e. 

The Washington Treaty. 

1872. Geneva Award. Boston fire. 

1873. Panic. 

1876. The Centennial at Philadelphia. Colorado a 

state. 

1877. Electoral Commission; Hayts President. Rail- 

way strike. 

1878. Bland Silver Bill. 

1879. Specie payments resumed. 

1880. Population, 50,155,783. 

1881. Garfield President — assassinated; Arthur Pres- 

ident. 
1883. Civil Service Act. Letter postage two cents. 
1885. Cleveland President. 
1887. Inter-State Commerce Act. 

1889. Harrison President. 

1890. Population, 62,622,250. 

1893. Columbian Fair. Cleveland President. 

1897. McKinley President. 

1898. Spanish War. Hawaii annexed. 

1899. Annexation of Islands. 



MAY 2 1903 



